Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Ulopo v Coffee Industry Corporation [1998] PGNC 124; N1808 (17 December 1998)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1808

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 808 OF 1997
BETWEEN
BENNY SENA ULOPO
PLAINTIFF
AND
COFFEE INDUSTRY CORPORATION
DEFENDANT

Goroka

Sawong J
4 December 1998
17 December 1998

Counsel

K. Kot, for the Plaintiff

D. Umba, for the Defendant

17 December 1998

SAWONG J: The plaintiff commence ediceedings claiming for loss of salary, loss of leave entitlements, loss of accommodation allowance, interest and cost. He clathese things becausecause he says he was wrongly made redundant.

The facts are not much in dispute - the only dispute is whether as a matter of law his dancy was wrongfulngful or not.

The undisputed facts are as follows: The plaintiff was femployeployed on a probationary period for three months by the defendant. After compl his threehs prhs probationationary period, the defendant by a letter of appointment dated 9 February 1995, appointed him on a permanent bto the position procurement off&#er. Then in March 1996, the soid position was was made redundant, and the plaintiff became redundant. Some four months lapsnd innd in July 1996, the defendant placed an advertisement calling for application for thetion of procurement officerficer. Thsition was soon filled.&led. Itot clear whether the plae plaintiff applied for that position or not. The plaintiff was not employed under a contract of employment. His terms and conditions of employment was covered byletter of appointment and tand the Terms and Conditions of Service.

The plaintiff’s counsel submit that there was no redcy situation given the circumstances outlined and that the the position was made redundant to make the plaintiff redundant. Heits that the fact that that the position was advertised and filled after 4 months shows that the decision to make the position rant was wrongful and without any basis in law.

Counsel for the defendant, in essencesence, submitted that the redundancy was valid. He further submitted that that was made in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment as applicable to the plaintiff.

In order to resolve this issues, I think that one must go to the terms of his letter of appointment and the Terms and Conditions of Service. The letter of appointment does not contain any provision for redundancy. However the letter pointmeintment under the heading “OTHER” says “other terms and conditions of employment would be covered the al terms and cond conditions of service for CIC”. The saims and Conditionstionstions of service does not contain any express provision dealing with redundancy situations. The nearest pion that is a is akin to a redundancy situation is clause 7160; This reads:

&#8p>“7.2 Dismissal by Notice

(b) &##160;; An empl employee dyee dismissed under this Rtion be eed to:

(i) &##160;; Pro rata laave eave eave pave pay, pay, and

(ii) &##160;rato long long serviservice leave pay in accce wigulat.3(b).

(iii) Refund of supurannn tion coon contribntributionutions in accordance with the policy of therannn schand

(

(iv)&#iv) Thance of his salary in rein respect of the unexpired portion of the notice period if any, and

(v) &ـ Repatripatriation tion in accordance with Regulation 7.4 of the CIC terms and conditions.”

In the present cI am fied on the evidence from the defendant that at relevant and material time the dehe decisiocision was made, a redundancy situation had indeed occurred. Consequ, I am of the view view that the plaintiff’s claim on speculation is without basis. It fo that he was properlyperly made redundant. Consequently his cla dismidismissed.

Lawyers for the Plaintiff: Kot & Co.

Lawyers for the Defendant: Acanufa & Associates