ISSUE: Was the worker’s suspension a case of associated frolic or unassociated frolic

committed during working hours?

Was the suspension pending an investigation contrary to good industrial relations practices,
especially as it had lasted for two years?
Were the workers entitled to natural justice before being suspended even though it was just a
holding mechanism?
LAW: An unassociated frolic deals with misconduct that is not directly a breach of duty or of
trust between that of the company and the employee nor does it directly go against an
employee’s job scope as these are frolics done primarily outside of working hours or outside
work premises. However, an employee can be subjected to disciplinary action if their
unassociated frolic reflects badly on the company.
Edcon Limited V Teresa Cantamessa Ms Cantamessa published the following post
onto her Facebook account: 1 Act 66 of 1995 as amended. 3 "Watching Carte Blanch
and listening to these fucking stupid monkeys running our country and how everyone
makes excuses for that stupid man we have to call a president... President my fucking
ass!! #zumamustfall This makes me crazy ass mad." Edcon who employer sought to
discipline her although the post was made while she was on leave. “In our view the
competence of an employer to discipline an employee for. At the end of the enquiry
what would have to be determined is if the employee’s misconduct ‘had the effect of
destroying or of seriously damaging the relationship of employer and employee
between the parties’ (See Anglo American Farms T/a Boschendal Restaurant v
Konjwayo (1992) 13 ILJ573 (LAC) 589 (G –H.)”
Good industrial relations practices refers to best practices used by employers and trade unions
to obtain positive, cooperative relationships with employees and resolve disputes responsibly,
independently, freely, and fairly. It is derived from the International Labour Organisation
Conventions, Labour laws of Trinidad and Tobago, Natural Justice and General Practices and
Principles,
In the case of Communication Workers Union vs Steel Workers Union, it was alleged
that a worker was dismissed for ‘gross misconduct’ for alterations in record keeping
concerning her absences. She was confronted and investigations were opened without
her knowledge. She was suspended before the investigation was completed. It was found
that her dismissal was harsh and oppressive and not in accordance with good industrial
relations practices despite being given warnings previously of her actions since she has
worked with the company for 19 years. She was compensated $55,000.
This principle is closely related to common law and speaks on the ethical way in which
employers dismiss their employees, however, it is not codified. Natural justice is closely related
to good industrial relations practices in that good industrial relations practices used the law of
nature to derive its moral. Natural justice states that employees should have the right to
consultation, representation, and warning.
This can be seen in the case of Anita Jorsingh v Junior Sammy Contractors Limited,
the claimant Ms. Jorsingh was being represented by the Steel Workers Union of
Trinidad and Tobago, they argued that the defendant Junior Sammy Contractors
Limited dismissed the claimant on principles contrary to that of good industrial
relations and natural justice. The claimant took vacation leave which was not
authorized and was written two memos in which the defendant asked her to explain her
 absence from work and the other asking for a further report on the matter to which she
responded. However, subsequent to this the claimant was issued a termination letter.
The claimant expressed that she was never under the impression that disciplinary
actions would be taken against her and hence her dismissal went against good
industrial practices and natural law. The claimant together with her union claimed for
damages. After reviewing the evidence of the case, the court ruled in the claimant’s
favour and granted her damages (in lieu of reinstatement) in the sum of One Hundred
and Seventy-Five Thousand dollars ($175,000.00).
Proper Procedural Action when dealing with dismissal in accordance with Good Industrial
Relations Practices and Natural Justice:
• • Full particulars of charges
• • Full disclosure of documents / evidence
• • Adequate time to prepare
• • Right to contest adverse information
• • Right to legal representation
• • Fair and impartial tribunal
• • Reasons for decision

Harsh and Oppressive:

Actions that are taken by the employer that is deemed inappropriate, unfair and severe.
In the case of Banking and Insurance General Workers vs Communications Workers
Union, Tiffany Perira, who was a permanent news reporter, was called to attend a
meeting with the Chief Officer and Head of News where her employment was
terminated due to complaints of errors and subpar writing skills. Ms. Perira was not
privy to the complaints before this meeting and was given seven days' notice before her
dismissal took effect. There was no progressive disciplinary action and no room for
corrective action. It was found that she was dismissed in a harsh and oppressive manner
contrary to that of good industrial relations practices and she was compensated
$75,000.
Suspension:
This refers to a temporary halt of rights and is used as a holding mechanism to preserve
organisational states during an investigation. One must receive pay during suspension and
suspensions should not usually last for longer than three months.
Rodwell Murray- Rodwell Murray is an Assistant Commissioner of Police who
allegedly attempted to rape a female member of the police service. He was suspended
pending an investigation and it was argued that he should have received natural justice
at this point. The court held that itt is clear from the English and Commonwealth
decisions which have been cited that here are many situations in which natural justice
doesnot require that a person must be told of the complaints made against him and
given a chance to answer them at the particular stage in question. Essential features
leading the courts to this conclusion have included the facts that the investigation is
 purely preliminary, that here will be a full chance adequately to deal with the
complaints later, that the making of the enquiry without observing the audi alteram
partem maxim is justified by urgency or administrative necessity, that no penalty or
serious damage to reputation is inflicted by proceeding to the next stage without such
preliminary notice, that the statutory scheme properly constructed excludes such a right
to know and to reply at the earlier stage.
However, suspension must be for a reasonable period of time pending completion of
disciplinary proceedings.
Sophia Duncan v Commissioner of Police: The Special Reserve woman police
constable who was suspended in 2017 after an image of someone purported to be her,
in her uniform, in a suggestive pose, surfaced on social media, has won her case against
the Commissioner of Police. Duncan sought a declaration that the decision of the
commissioner on August 7, 2017, was in breach of the principles of natural justice since
she was not given an opportunity to be heard before she was suspended and she was
not provided with the particulars of the alleged offence she committed which led to her
suspension. She also complained that she was not told how long she would be on
suspension or anything about the investigation. Duncan also sought a declaration that
her continued suspension, without a hearing, deprived her of a right to a fair, expeditious
and unbiased investigation and was punitive.

Analysis:
It is clear that drinking alcohol is not part of the duties of the three TTEC workers and therefore
it bears no relationship with work expectations. It however occurred during work hours and
can be considered as a matter of concern for the employer. TTEC is entitled to take disciplinary
proceedings although it did not involve work activities. The fact that they were immediately
suspended with no natural justice is not fatal as suspension in this case was merely a holding
mechanism. In such an instance especially when full pay is being received, it cannot be
considered as a punishment albeit that it might prove embarrassing. The company was entitled
to immediately suspend the workers while investigating their conduct at the rum shop. This
would include gathering evidence as to whether they were actually engaged in the consumption
of alcohol as rum shops also sell non-alcholic beverages.
The major concern is the two year period of suspension with no disciplinary proceedings
commencing. This can amount to a breach of natural justice as when workers are suspended
disciplinary actions should be concluded as quickly as possible. This is especially so in this
case where the charges are not complex and the facts can be easily ascertained.
Conclusion: TTEC did not breach good industrial relations practices by suspending the
workers without furnishing them with particular but by not commencing disciplinary
proceedings within a reasonable time, the company has breached the rules of natural justice.