A human resources consultant is calling for a review of a recent Industrial Court ruling that found a Carlisle Bay Resort chef had abandoned his job, warning that the decision could set a troubling precedent for labour relations in Antigua and Barbuda.
In a March 19, 2026 letter to the Antigua and Barbuda Workers’ Union, Javonson Willock, managing director of ConsultHIM and a specialist in industrial and labour relations, said the Court’s decision in Akeele Thomas v Carlisle Bay Resort raises “serious concerns” and may warrant an appeal.
Willock questioned whether an employer can lawfully stop scheduling an employee after a period of certified sick leave, remain silent, and later rely on job abandonment as a defence. He suggested the ruling appears to answer that question in the affirmative, a position he argues could weaken established worker protections.
The Industrial Court, in its February 6, 2026 judgment, dismissed Thomas’ claim of unfair dismissal, finding that there was no evidence the employer had terminated his employment.
Instead, the Court concluded that Thomas had abandoned his job after failing to return to work or maintain adequate communication following an extended period of sick leave that ended in March 2020.
The case arose after Thomas, who had worked as a chef primarily on the overnight shift, was temporarily laid off in 2019 when the resort discontinued its overnight kitchen service. He later went on certified sick leave for several months.
According to the Court, Thomas did not return to work after his sick leave expired, did not submit further medical certificates beyond March 2020, and did not sufficiently engage the employer to clarify his status. The Court accepted the employer’s position that it was uncertain of Thomas’ intentions and ultimately formed the view that he had abandoned his job.
Critically, the Court found that being removed from the work roster was not, in itself, proof of dismissal. It also ruled that there was no clear resignation and declined to consider constructive dismissal, noting the issue had not been properly raised in the proceedings.
Willock, however, argued that the judgment places an unfair burden on employees while overlooking the employer’s responsibility to manage the employment relationship.
He contended that, as a matter of good industrial relations practice, employers have a duty to roster and notify employees of their return-to-work schedule following sick leave. He said he was unaware of any legal precedent that requires employees to initiate contact to determine their work schedule after being certified fit to return.
The consultant also criticised the Court’s narrow interpretation of dismissal, arguing that termination can occur through conduct, not just formal notice. He warned that leaving an employee “in limbo” without scheduling or communication could, in practice, amount to dismissal.
In addition, Willock took issue with the Court’s refusal to fully engage with the concept of constructive dismissal, describing it as a technical approach that prioritises procedural rules over fairness.
He further warned that the implications of the ruling could allow employers to avoid liability by taking no formal action — neither scheduling the employee nor issuing termination — and later asserting abandonment.
“If this approach is allowed to stand, it risks undermining fundamental protections in our labour system,” Willock wrote.
Despite these concerns, the Court maintained that the burden of proof rested on the employee to establish that he had been dismissed. Finding no such evidence, and concluding that Thomas’ conduct objectively amounted to abandonment, the Court dismissed the claim.
The decision leaves unresolved broader questions about employer obligations following extended sick leave and may prompt further scrutiny from labour advocates and legal practitioners.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
True. Just because his sick leave ends doesn’t mean a person has to be scheduled to work the next day. A simple oversight or perhaps the roster already being filled for the rest of the week could see a person not being required to show up for work for 2 more days…which would be enough to constitute abandonment.
Now I’m sure there was a lot more to it in this case but Willock is right, when the case is reviewed by other lawyers and judges seeking precedent, only the recorded details will matter. This means that whatever nuances that led the judge to their decision (assuming the judge acted correctly and fairly) will have been lost.
Perhaps the unions should jointly get involved and sponsor an appeal as this could affect all workers’ rights.
I have been in this business (Industrial Relations) for more than 32 years and I must say that this decision, in my respectful view, is rather perverse and has very serious implications for Labour Relations in Antigua and Barbuda. I cannot imagine that the ABWU, who represented the employee – ostensibly their member – would like this decision stand on the record. Time for filing an appeal ends today, barring an application for an extension of time for filing.
The duty fall on the employer to provide scheduling. If there is no scheduling of the employee that the employer knows is now ready for work (no longer on sick leave) then it is 100% the duty of the employer to set the schedule and the employee have no duty to demand to be scheduled and stay home as long as they are not scheduled without risk of being fired for not showing up to a job in which they have no duty to showup or contact (as they aren’t scheduled).
If employees can schedule themself, then they would take as many hours as they want, to get as much pay as they want/need, and on days they want/need to work.
This ruling, if correct as explained here, is tremendously wrong. Further let me know no court of final appeals should be in Antigua and Barbuda or the caribbean at this stage.
Maybe I have been in the ranks of employer for too long, so I have lost my “employee” viewpoint. I look at it this way. If an employee falls ill, it is the employee’s duty to notify the employer that he/she is unwell and not available for work. The employer should not need to call to find out you are unwell. Similarly, on the expiry of your sick leave, the duty should also be on the employee to notify his/her employer that they are now well and available for work. Just as it is the employee’s duty to notify you are unavailable, it is also theirs to notify availability.
While it would be nice for the employer to show some care, and check in with an ill employee to make sure they are ok, there is no “requirement” for this to happen. People just need to decent, proper and professional in their dealings and communications. Sadly, I find these so called consultants and unions encourage their membership to act in ways that are against the spirit of good labour relations.
This is why I’m a strong advocate of unions and how they do their level best to protect workers rights. The erosion of unions laws by the vested interests of the – ever more – money grabbing employers around the world has got way out of hand.
PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING GLOBALLY!!!
Lack of disposable income; losing homes; and cost of living spiralling out of control.
That’s why I have such disdain for employers rapacity, avarice and acquisitiveness. It’s just pure greed!
This is why I’ve mentioned time and again, that these lobbyist types have so much more power than the voting electorate. They wine and dine our politicians, give them gifts and even pay for their extensive travelling/holiday arrangements.
And look where workers rights have gone in regards to earning a decent wage today and the continued erosion of pensions and increasing the age range before you’re entitled to it. It’s crooked I tell you crooked!!!
This is the real reason that politicians want to destroy unions (who remember, look out for workers interests and welfare more than any politician), politicians are normally in the “silver-lined” pockets of lobbyists!
Workers rights needs protection now!
This ruling raises a serious concern. In the tourism and hotel sector, many companies operate in multiple markets, including the United States, where it is common for employees to be scheduled down to zero hours instead of being formally terminated. In those situations, the worker is not told they are fired, but they are also not given any work, which puts them in a difficult position.
My concern is that if the definition of job abandonment becomes too broad, employers in Antigua and Barbuda could use similar practices, leaving workers without hours while later claiming that the employee abandoned the job. Even though our labour laws are different, decisions like this could affect how worker protections are applied in the future.
The question is how to balance the rights of employers with the need to make sure employees are not pushed out of their jobs without proper notice or due process.
@The Leftist – Whenever a sick leave is submitted, it is always submitted with a date the employee will be considered fit to return to work so the employer knows when the employee should be available for work. Furthermore, it appears the employee showed concern by consulting the roster. They were not scheduled to work so they didn’t work. Next thing they hear they have abandoned their job. One detail that is missing though is how long they stayed home without attempting to verify their status. The fact that he had been temporarily laid off before going on sick leave would explain why he wasn’t on the roster. By that time they had probably nearly forgotten he worked there. If that is the case though, they should have just accepted the error and called him out to work instead of apparently trying to find an easy way to dismiss him.
The ruling is DUMB………
THE SICK LEAVE HAS A FIT TO RESUME WORK DATE..
THE FIT TO RESUME DATE THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED AS NORMAL.
WHEN HE RETURNS TO WORK THE MANAGEMENT IS FREE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS.
The management could not take legal action while the employee was on sick leave..
THE INDUSTRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR, THAT VERDICT IS SUSPICIOUS AND SHOULD BE INQUIRED INTO BECAUSE ALL THE MEMBERS MAY NEED TO BE REMOVED
Real good points raised by Willock
Comments are closed.