A WOMAN who was wrongfully dismissed by the Guyana Sugar Corporation back in 2014 was awarded some $7.6M by Justice Navindra Singh at the conclusion of a lawsuit at the Berbice High Court.

Justice Singh ruled in favour of dismissed nurse, Sarawattie Bepot, and awarded her a total sum of $7,610,896,a representation of the basic award of her salary from the date of dismissal to the date of judgment.

Further, Bepot was awarded a compensatory award, as she remained unemployed. The award was calculated at Begot’s salary for four years without an inclusion of a figure for allowances, so as to compensate for taxation and reduced by five percent to take into account the fact that the woman will be receiving a lump sum payment. This award is $4,030,858.00 (calculated as 5% of 88,396.00 X 48).The total award under these heads being $7,610,896.

In addition, the Judge ordered that all contributions made by the Plaintiff under the Defendant’s Contributory Pension Scheme and the Defendant’s Contributory Medical Insurance Scheme be returned or repaid to her forthwith. It was further ordered that all of the above awards and repayments be paid together with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from June 13th 2014 to November 1st 2017 and four percent per annum thereafter, until fully paid. The cost to the Plaintiff is in the sum of $150,000.

The case was presented to the High Court for Judgement after Bepot, who was employed by GuySuCo since April 1, 2007 and assigned to work at the Blairmont Estate as a Staff Nurse, had her services terminated by the GuySuCo, via a letter dated June 13th 2014. The reasons given at the time were: Abusive behavior; insubordination; making untrue statement against a fellow employee and commission of an act striking at the foundation of employment contract.

However, Bepot claimed that the termination of her employment was unlawful, while her employer contended that she was dismissed for “serious misconduct consistent with her terms of employment and her contractual obligations to GuySuCo.
The charges against the woman occurred between January 13th, 2014 and April 24th, 2014. GuySuCo, represented by Attorney at law Deena Panday pleaded the particulars of such serious misconduct being, on various occasions during the period stated, Bepot was abusive and insubordinate towards her supervisor, the Medex, while in the presence of members of the public”.

Further, Bepot changed the working hours of staff members without authority and without prior approval and, or permission of her supervisor, the Medex. It was also stated that Depot, who was represented by Messrs. Arudranauth Goosai and Mursaline Bacchus, failed to carry out the duties she was required to undertake in the absence of the Medex, namely, providing medical care; refused to give assistance in the case of medical emergencies and failed to prepare charts for the doctor, duties within the scope of her contractual obligations.

Additionally, Bepot unlawfully destroyed the personal property of another member of the Defendant’s staff, and published and posted written defamatory messages and statements on the walls of the GuySuCo premises and libelled other employees to members of the public.

During the hearing, two witnesses testified for the Guyana Sugar Corporation, namely Human Resources Manager, Lalta Persaud, and Medex Corine Watts. Suffice to say ,the Judge in his ruling noted that Mr. Persaud did not in any way assist the Court with respect to the serious misconduct that Bepot engaged in between January 13th 2014 and April 24th 2014 ,that was inconsistent with her terms of employment and her contractual obligations to the Guyana Sugar Corporation, and which necessitated a summary dismissal; nor did his testimony substantiate the particulars of such misconduct pleaded at paragraph seven of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence.

Further, Justice Singh observed that Medex Corine Watts’ evidence did not in any way substantiate the particulars of serious misconduct which was also pleaded in paragraph seven of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence. Medex Watts testified that she made several complaints to the HR Manager, which was inconsistent with Mr. Persaud’s testimony.

This, coupled with the fact that Medex Watts’ testimony with respect to the purported incidents of misconduct was vague, led the Court to the conclusion that these incidents either did not take place or did not happen the way Medex Watts attempted to portray.