At least one of six workers dismissed by Jumby Bay Resort is threatening legal action over what he claims is an unlawful suspension and unfair dismissal, even as the Antigua and Barbuda Workers’ Union (ABWU) continues to call for the resort to reverse its decision.
The former Food & Beverage Server, employed since December 2017, has retained industrial relations consultant Anderson E. Carty who, in a November 26 letter to the resort’s Executive Head of People and Culture, demanded a hefty compensation package.
The demand letter gives Jumby Bay Resort until December 3rd to settle the claim, warning that failure to do so will result in the matter being referred to the Labour Commissioner as the next step toward litigation before the Industrial Court.
The case centers on events that unfolded during an event on October 19th, 2025. According to Carty’s letter, his client reported for his 3:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. shift feeling unwell but determined to work through it. After a team briefing at approximately 4:45 p.m., staff were instructed to take a meal break and return at 6 p.m.
The worker claims he returned about five minutes late after making an urgent restroom trip due to an upset stomach. He made a second restroom visit approximately half an hour later, and when he still felt no improvement, informed the restaurant manager that he needed to end his shift early.
“There was no objection to him ending duty; he was never directed, instructed or told he was required to go visit with the duty nurse, as a matter of company policy,” Carty wrote.
The suspension letter issued October 20th accused the employee of engaging in “a disrespectful and argumentative exchange” with his manager and that he “subsequently walked off the job” after notifying his manager he was unwell.
However, the resort’s November 25th termination letter painted a different picture of events. Management concluded that the employee, along with other staff members, participated in what it characterized as a coordinated work stoppage in response to instructions given to prepare for the event.
According to the letter, the manager reported that the evening shift collectively decided to leave the premises citing illness or emergency as a reaction to his decision about setting up facilities for the event. Of the 10 persons scheduled to work the event, starting at 7 pm, seven of them left on the 7:30 pm ferry, all citing either illness, belly aches, or emergencies.
The resort’s investigation found that prior to the briefing, there was no indication from any staff member of illness or emergency that would prevent them from completing their assigned tasks. Management concluded staff discussed and decided during their 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. break that they were unprepared to continue working the shift as directed.
The resort further concluded that staff would cite illness or emergencies as their reason to leave before the usual time, providing themselves with an excuse for leaving. It noted that none of the employees who claimed to be feeling ill visited the nurse before departing, despite company policy requiring such visits when employees fall ill at work.
Carty disputed the management’s characterizations in his letter, arguing that his client’s suspension exceeded four weeks without pay, which he claims violates repeated Labour Court decisions affirming such action is contrary to good industrial relations practices.
“Even if it was a form of industrial action, there is nothing in the Labour laws or Collective Agreement that gives the company any reasonable ground or, otherwise, the lawful right to terminate any of the employees,” Carty wrote.
He further alleged the company formed a belief that employees were engaged in collective action and that the dismissals were designed to “disparage and suppress any form of industrial action where employees may well have good and sufficient reasons to become agitated and aggrieved”.
The compensation claim includes a sum for loss of protection, for notice pay with service charge and tips, for unused vacation days, for immediate and future loss from unfair dismissal, exemplary damages and costs.
Meanwhile, the ABWU issued a strongly-worded statement last week condemning what it termed “the reprehensible action taken by the management of Jumby Bay Resort”.
ABWU General Secretary David Massiah said the union would meet with the affected workers and, if necessary, stage a picket to publicly condemn the company’s actions.
The union urged Jumby Bay Resort to “immediately reconsider its position, reinstate the workers, and allow good sense and reasonableness to prevail.”
The resort’s termination letter cited provisions in the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Code permitting dismissal where an employee has been guilty of misconduct “so serious” that the employer “cannot reasonably be expected to take any course other than termination”.
It characterized the workers’ conduct as “serious misconduct, resulting in the employer totally losing trust and confidence in you, and management is of the view that your conduct demonstrates that the employment relationship cannot reasonably be expected to continue”.
Observer media reached out to Jumby Bay Resort for a comment on the issue, including the ABWU’s call to reconsider its position, however, the resort respectfully opted not to comment.
