Saint Aubin Limitée v Alain Jean François Doger de Spéville (Mauritius)
2011
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
United Kingdom
CORAM
- Lord Phillips
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2011
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Saint Aubin Limit e9e, long engaged in sugar production, diversified into rum and employed engineer Mr de Sp e9ville as transport and workshop manager from 1998, recognizing his prior service since 1975. After helping set up a distillery, he split his time between the garage and distillery. In late April and early May 2005, Director J.M. Patrick Guimbeau informed him that he would be reassigned full-time to manage the distillery and replaced in his garage role by Pierre Seneque. Distressed, de Sp e9ville objected, sought reconsideration, and, when Operations Manager Mr Chelin confirmed the change on 16 May, treated the unilateral reassignment as constructive dismissal, returning company property. The Industrial Court and Supreme Court upheld his claims and awarded indemnity and punitive severance under s.36(7). On appeal, the Board rejected jurisdictional and constitutional complaints and affirmed that the employer had no valid reason to terminate the transport/workshop role; appeal dismissed with costs.
LORD MANCE:
Introduction
The production of sugar has for long been a staple industry in Mauritius, and it constituted the traditional focus of the business of the appellant, Saint Aubin Limitée. The respondent, Mr de Spéville, is an engineer with expertise in the fields of automobile and agricultural technology, and was by letter dated 23 December 1998 appointed as the appellant’s transport and workshop (or garage) manager at an initial salary of Rs 38,000 with a thirteenth month in December. It was agreed that his previous years of employment in the sugar industry with other employers, commencing in 1975, would be recognised by the appellant (i.e. for purposes such as the calculation of any severance allowance).
Concern about the prospects for the sugar industry led the appellant to diversify into the production of rum. From 2002 Mr de Spéville helped to set up a small distillery, which opened on 3 December 2003 and thereafter he spent part of his time as the distillery’s effective manager, signing himself as such in correspondence. He attended to the transport and workshop division from 0530 to 0900, and, unless there was any further duty to be performed there, he went to the distillery for the rest of the day, until about 1530.
In May 2005, in circumstances to which the Board will return in greater detail, the appellant told Mr de Spéville that he was to devote himself full time to the distillery, that its business was to be substantially expanded, and that Mr Pierre Seneque has been informed that he would be taking over as transport and workshop manager in Mr de Spéville’s place. Mr de Spéville treated this as a constructive dismissal of him as transport and workshop manager with effect from 16 May 2005, and claimed accordingly. He further claimed that there was no justification for any termination of his employment. These claims were accepted by the Vice-President of the Industrial Court, Mr Magistrate B. Marie Joseph, in a judgment dated 14 October 2008 and by the Supreme Court which dismissed an appeal on 19 May 2010.
The Vice-President awarded an indemnity of three months salary in lieu of notice and, on the basis that termination was unjustified, a severance allowance at the punitive rate prescribed by s.36(7) of the Labour Act RL 3/315 of 30 December 1975 as amended. The indemnity amounted to Rs 285,020.13. The punitive rate of severance allowance fell under s.36(7) to be calculated as a sum equal to six times of the ordinary severance allow