Belize's highest court - The Caribbean Court Of Justice has been convening in Barbados for the past three days - and the court today heard its second full appeal hearing from Belize.
The case is one filed by six employees of Mayan King Banana Farm who claimed they were fired because they were unionizing.
In 2009, the Supreme Court awarded them seventy thousand dollars each in compensation - in total, an almost half a million dollar judgment against Mayan King. The farm owner appealed and the Court of Appeal reduced the award to thirty thousand dollars for each of the six workers.
But the owner of Mayan King, John Zabaneh wasn't satisfied and so his attorney Eamon Courtenay appealed that decision to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
The case was heard today - 11 years after the workers were fired.
In an encouraging first for Belize, the hearing was streamed live on the internet from Barbados - and though it lasted almost four hours, here are a few brief clips to outline the basic arguments with Courtenay appearing for Maya King and Antoinette Moore appearing for the six workers:..
Untitled from 7News Belize on Vimeo.
Eamon Courtenay - Attorney for John Zabaneh
"The claimant is obliged to make out the elements set out in Section 5, first of all, to the level of satisfying the court. And a balance of probabilities that there is dismissal - to use the words of the act - by reason of the union activities."
CCJ Judge 1
"Section 11 - 4 says nothing about the complainant having to prove anything. Section 11 - 4 speaks about the complaint being proved so that - I don't see section 4 as casting any burden on the complainant in which you just appeared to have suggested."
Eamon Courtenay
"There must be evidence, 1, of a dismissal, 2, evidence that complainant was involved in union activities of some sort and 3 - we will respectfully submit - there must be some evidence to show that the cause of the termination or dismissal was a cause of or by reason of the union activities."
CC Judge 2
"You think that there is no evidence coming from the respondent that they were dismissed because of that."
Eamon Courtenay
"That would be our submission in a nutshell on the evidence points."
Antoinette Moore - Attorney for the Terminated Employees
"1, they were long-standing employees, 2, that there had been no complaints against them, 3, that they were leading all of the union activities, and 4, that it was only after activities, that the employer determined that they were too be dismissed."
CCJ Judge 3
"Is there any direct evidence that these employees were dismissed for union activities?"
Antoinette Moore
"It is a circumstantial case, my lord, and it is for that reason that I previously said that it would be a rare case that you would have the smoking gun. This is the point at which the burden must shift to the employer. The employees have set out what they know that they had never had any complaints, that they worked very long, that they had union activities, and after their union activities they were fired. At point, they know no more. It is in the hands of the employer, the records of each, the proficiency rates - it is the employer, and that is why I believe that the burden the statute puts on is the employer who then has that information."
CCJ 4
"You must present some evidence, at least sufficient to satisfy the standard that it is more likely than not, that this person was dismissed for union activities. You must do that, now you sought to do that by circumstantial evidence."
After that, much of the arguments went along that line, focusing on whether Moore could establish what the lawyers call a "prima facie" case that the workers were fired for union activities.
Judgment has been reserved.
And, for clarity, just a small note, the Caribbean Court of Justice is headquartered in Trinidad and Tobago, but had a special sitting in the Barbados Supreme Court building for the past few days.
We note with interest the fact that there were multiple cameras in the courtroom - an innovation which is not even contemplated in Belize. In fact, in Belize, court reporters are cautioned that they cannot even use their cell phones to record the sound from Supreme and appeals court sessions - standards which no doubt derive from 19th century courtroom conventions.
Email
Print