In the Employment Tribunal   SPA to pay Herbert Houareau R1,890,265.90 for unlawful dismissal |29 September 2021

Herbert Houareau is entitled to be paid R1,890,265.90 after the Employment Tribunal determined yesterday that his termination of employment on March 28, 2018 by the Seychelles Ports Authority was unlawful and unjustified.

The award is made up primarily of his salary from date of unjustified termination until date of the judgment which he would be entitled to, as per section 61 (2)(a) of the Employment Act in circumstances where termination is found to be not justified and it would be impractical or inconvenient to re-instate the worker.

This award comprises what Mr Houareau is already entitled to from the time he was terminated until the judgment date. The calculation is based on his salary as that of a deputy chief executive officer (DCEO), together with paid leave, years of service, and the required two months’ notice payment.

The parties have 14 days to appeal the decision of this Tribunal if they so choose to.

Appointed deputy CEO of the Seychelles Ports Authority (SPA) on November 1, 2016, Mr Houareau filed a grievance for wrongful dismissal and was initially claiming re-instatement without any loss of earnings and the withdrawal of the negative appraisal on his employee file.

As the hearing progressed, however Mr Houareau decided not to pursue his request for reinstatement but instead wished to be paid his salary up until the date of lawful termination and all legal dues owed at the time of his dismissal.

Mr Hoareau had, over the course of his employment, received negative appraisals that alleged poor performance. The respondent (SPA) also claimed Mr Houareau was being insubordinate for not signing an amended contract they made for him, but he (Mr Houareau) maintained that he did not sign due to incorrect information on said contract and ongoing internal issues at his workplace.

He then in 2018 resorted to pursuing a grievance with the anti-victimisation committee within the National Assembly.

The SPA maintains that the proper internal disciplinary procedures were carried out and which were in accordance with the law and that there was an internal investigation that took place on Mr Houareau.

Mr Houareau was duly notified that he was being investigated on March 9, 2018 and was invited to attend an investigation on March 13, 2018. However, upon consideration of the letter dated March 9, 2018, the tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Houareau was properly advised as to the alleged disciplinary offence that he was been investigated of committing.

In the circumstances, the tribunal does not feel that Mr Hoareau was given sufficient notice of the alleged serious disciplinary offence nor can it be considered reasonable to issue a directive and demand compliance within less than 24 hours.

In respect of the termination itself, Section 53 (5) of the Employment Act puts the burden of proving the disciplinary offence on the employer.

He had already reported numerous work issues (including the non-issuance of a contract) to the anti-victimisation committee and as such was advised by his lawyer not to sign any contract until his grievance had been addressed.

As such the tribunal found that the termination was not justified nor was it carried out fairly in accordance to law and found in favour of Mr Houareau in this instance.

Speaking to Seychelles NATION, Mr Houareau said: “Justice has been made and it feels good. It has been three and a half years since I have been fighting for my rights before the employment tribunal after my employment was terminated by the SPA. Both the SPA management and board lied before the tribunal but I had enough proof to counter their lies. In fact they had tried twice to terminate my employment, when I had worked for 17 months without a contract. The former chief executive of SPA abused his position. Although I am happy justice has been done and I await the response of SPA as it has 14 days to appeal the decision.  I can also say that the outcome of my case gives hope to other former SPA workers who had been fired in the past and have filed cases against the SPA.”

Compiled by Gerard Govinden