THE Employment Relations Court has dismissed a lawsuit initiated by a research director against his employer, the Fiji National University, for unfairly or unlawfully terminating his contract.
The plaintiff, Ronald Rajesh Kumar, was employed at FNU from March 4, 2020, until his contract was terminated on July 25, 2022.
Mr Kumar initiated this civil action for unlawful, unjust and harsh dismissal while also claiming for balances of the unexpired portion of the employment contract, general damages, interests and costs.
He was initially given an employment contract from March 4, 2020, to December 31, 2021. This was further extended for another three years until his termination on July 25, 2022.
His position was newly-established and was under the supervision of the Pro Vice Chancellor Research, who also refused to accept Mr Kumar’s letter of resignation after he was offered a similar position with another company.
The Pro Vice Chancellor Research, as a result, upgraded Mr Kumar’s salary from level 2 to level 6 together with an offer for a bonus payment of $10,000 on a performance basis, but he was served with a termination letter with his salary for three months in lieu of notice on July 27, 2022.
Mr Kumar in cross-examination, admitted receiving his Certificate of Service per the Employment Act, however, he was unable to find any other meaningful employment.
He argued his termination only two months after his contract was fixed for three years was bad faith, unfair, without respect or dignity and was oppressive.
But FNU also argued that there was no evidence provided to show Mr Kumar was being treated in an unjust, abusive and oppressive manner when his contract was terminated and time was given for him to clear his belongings.
“I find that there was no act of bad faith or unfair dealings in the manner in which his contract was terminated that day,” stated High Court judge Justice Senileba Levaci on May 8.
“Although there is an implied term of the contract that the employee will be treated fairly, there was nothing to show he was unfairly treated. From the contract he signed, there was no clause requiring him to serve the contract for a certain period before the contract could be terminated.
“He did not voice his refusal of the termination letter nor challenge the requirement to leave the premises.
“He argues that the manner of his treatment has rendered him unable to find another employment. I find this argument absurd. He had already shown he was offered a similar role in another private company, similar to what he was contracted to do at the defendant’s institution.
“He is, therefore, marketable. I find that there was insufficient evidence to show that his termination affected his employment in another place. I, therefore, find that the claims by the plaintiff are not sustained as he is unable to prove that his termination was unlawful or unfair.
“He was also unable to prove from evidence that the termination caused him embarrassment, humiliation and loss of dignity.”
