The Fiji Court of Appeal has overturned an Employment Relations Court’s (ERC) finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a dismissed worker’s claim, sending the case back to the ERC for rehearing.
Background
Mohammed Khan, dismissed by Coca Cola Amatil (Fiji) Ltd in 2016 for alleged misconduct, sued his former employer in 2019, arguing that his summary dismissal breached his employment contract and was unfair. The ERC, presided over by Justice Javed Mansoor, dismissed Khan’s claim on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the employment grievance.
Appeal and judgment
Khan appealed, contending his action was founded on a breach of his contract of employment and therefore fell within the ERC’s jurisdiction under section 220(1)(h) of the Employment Relations Act 2007. On July 25, a panel of the Court of Appeal—Justices Chandana Prematilaka, Alipate Qetaki and Robert Dobson—overturned Justice Mansoor’s ruling.
The Court held that Khan’s action was properly pleaded as a contract claim and that employment grievances arising from dismissal are “inextricably interwoven” with the contract of employment. The judges criticised a rigid separation between jurisdictional categories and affirmed that the ERC can determine whether a worker has an employment grievance. The earlier ruling was set aside and the matter was remitted to the ERC for a new judgment on the existing evidence to be delivered within six months. Khan was also awarded $5,000 in costs.
Significance and context
The Court of Appeal’s decision clarifies that where a dismissal-related claim is grounded in alleged breaches of the employment contract, the ERC has jurisdiction to hear it. By rejecting a strict jurisdictional divide between contract claims and employment grievances, the judgment preserves employees’ access to employment forums for disputes closely tied to termination.
This outcome aligns with a visible trend in recent Fijian jurisprudence favouring access to workplace remedies and careful scrutiny of procedure in dismissals. For employers, the ruling underscores the need for transparent disciplinary processes, clear record-keeping and proper adherence to contractual and statutory procedures when dismissing staff. For employees, it reinforces the importance of framing claims properly and pursuing available remedies.
Summary (brief)
– Court of Appeal overturned ERC’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
– Khan’s 2019 claim against Coca Cola Amatil (Fiji) Ltd will return to the ERC.
– Judges found the claim was founded on breach of employment contract and that dismissal grievances cannot be wholly separated from contractual claims.
– Case remitted to the ERC for reconsideration within six months; $5,000 costs awarded to Khan.
Additional comments and practical takeaways
– Employers should review and document disciplinary procedures to ensure decisions can withstand legal scrutiny and to reduce the risk of successful challenges.
– Employees should seek early legal advice to ensure their claims are properly pleaded under the Employment Relations Act and supported by evidence.
– The decision offers a constructive signal that the courts will look beyond formal jurisdictional labels to the substance of employment disputes, which can encourage fairer workplace practices and provide reassurance to workers seeking redress.
Hopeful perspective
By affirming that employment grievances linked to dismissal can be heard where they are grounded in contractual breach, the Court’s ruling strengthens legal avenues for resolving workplace disputes and encourages employers to uphold fair, transparent processes—benefiting both workers and organisations over the long term.
Leave a comment