Consult HIM

Consult HIM Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Consult HIM, Consulting Agency, Sir George Walter Highway, Saint John's.

Please be guided by our roadmap.Please note that no advice will be provided until the first step is completed. Step one ...
10/06/2026

Please be guided by our roadmap.

Please note that no advice will be provided until the first step is completed. Step one is crucial as it allows us to do a conflict check, preventing us from inadvertently representing opposing parties.

Thank you for expressing interest in having us resolve your matter.

09/05/2026

The Industrial Court recently awarded a former State Insurance Company executive almost $1Million in compensation after finding that his dismissal was unfair and procedurally defective.

In its April 10, 2026 judgment, the Court ruled that the employer failed to provide the precise reason for dismissal as required under Section C10(1) of the Labour Code and also failed to follow proper disciplinary procedures before terminating the employee's employment.

The Court found that the dismissal letter relied on broad allegations involving financial irregularities and underperformance without clearly identifying the specific misconduct alleged against the employee. The Court also noted that no formal disciplinary warnings were issued and that the employee was not given a genuine opportunity to properly respond before being dismissed.

The breakdown of compensation is as follows:

Loss of Protection: $343,786.19
Immediate Loss: $269,754.92
Future Loss: $30,027.12
Exemplary Damage: $50,000
Loss of Insurance Coverage: $183,359.67
Cost: $10,000

At Consult HIM, we assist employers with workplace investigations, disciplinary hearings, and HR advisory services aimed at reducing legal exposure and ensuring compliance with Labour Laws and best Industrial Relations practices.

A properly handled disciplinary process can protect organizations from costly litigation and reputational damage.

Contact us today for professional support.

22/03/2026

ConsultHIM has taken note of the recent Industrial Court ruling in Akeele Thomas v Carlisle Bay Resort and the broader implications it may have for the development of employment law in Antigua.

Of particular concern is the approach taken to the issue of job abandonment, especially in circumstances where the conduct of the employer is not fully examined in determining whether the employment relationship has come to an end.

In our view, the question of abandonment must be approached with caution. It is a serious legal conclusion that ought to be supported by clear and unequivocal intention on the part of the employee, and not inferred lightly in the absence of proper analysis of all surrounding circumstances.

We are of the considered position that this matter raises important legal questions which may benefit from further judicial clarification, particularly in relation to the burden of proof and the role of employer conduct in termination disputes.

We remain ready to engage with relevant stakeholders, to include the Antigua Barbuda Workers Union, to ensure these issues are properly addressed in a manner that promotes clarity, fairness, and balance in labour relations.

This is not simply a matter concerning one employee or one employer. It is a matter that may shape the trajectory of employment law in Antigua going forward.

An appeal of the Industrial Court’s ruling in this matter is inevitable.

09/03/2026

The War that needs to be talked about: Attorneys-at-Law (Employers' Representatives) vs Consultants and Trade Union Officials (Employees’ Representatives)⬇️

There is an uncomfortable issue within our Industrial Relations landscape that should not continue to go unaddressed. And, this post is intended to shed some light on the matter.

This issue concerns the growing pattern of conduct by some, “SOME,” Attorneys-at-Law who show subtle, and sometimes open, disregard for the work of Consultants and Trade Union Officials in resolving unfair dismissal claims.

The Code of Ethics governing attorneys is clear. An attorney must act in the best interest of their client, represent them honestly, competently, and zealously, and give a candid opinion on the merits and probable outcome of litigation. The rules go further to caution attorneys against giving bold or confident assurances where employment may depend on such assurances.

These principles exist for reasons that include: (i) the law is not always on the client’s side; (ii) litigation is uncertain; and (iii) justice requires fairness to both parties. Therefore, where settlement is available, the law itself encourages resolution without unnecessary litigation.

Irrespective of an expressed rule to settle without unnecessary litigation, some matters that have no prospect of success are being aggressively defended, in what appears to be “just another payday.” Critics may argue that we are in no position to determine the prospects of success of any claim. We agree that our word should not be taken. And, for this reason, all parties should be guided by the Labour laws.

C10 of the Labour Code requires that “Upon termination by an employer of an employee’s employment subsequent to the expiration of the latter’s probation period, the employer shall, within seven days of the termination or notice thereof, furnish to such employee a written statement of the precise reason for the termination........ An employer who fails to furnish the statement ……. Shall be estopped from introducing testimony as to the facts which might have been recited in said statement……. in any proceeding testing the fairness of the dismissal……”

Simply put, if it is clear that an employer dismissed an employee but did not issue a statement of termination within 7 days, then defending the case to reject liability is hopeless. The attorney’s only job now is to mitigate and/or negotiate, not to advise the Employer to “defend the claim aggressively in court when the time comes.”

Defending a hopeless case does more than expose a client to unnecessary legal cost; it signals a lack of respect for: (i) the professional assessment of Industrial Relations Practitioners and Union Officials and (ii) the time and resources of the Court.

Consultants and union officials are often on the ground.

We assess facts early.

We examine procedures.

We evaluate whether misconduct was properly investigated, whether due process was followed, and whether termination was justified.

Therefore, when a lawyer knows the case is fundamentally weak, yet chooses to escalate rather than resolve, it undermines the entire Industrial Relations framework.

The duty of an attorney is not to sell hope; it is to give honest advice. And, sometimes, the advice sounds like:

“Your case is weak.”

“The law does not support you.”

“You should consider a settlement.”

“You may lose.”

We understand that that advice may not be popular. But, it is the harsh reality.

A few years ago, the Industrial Court awarded compensation to Mr. Anderson Carty, one of Antigua’s leading Industrial Relations Consultants. The matter was appealed up to the Privy Council. During the hearing, Dr. David Dorsette, who represented Mr. Carty, scarcely needed to address the panel. It was clear that the Board was unimpressed by the decision to pursue an appeal that had little to no realistic prospect of success.

Put another way, the Board essentially said, the lawyer for the Employer wasted time, client's money, and court resources by escalating a hopeless case.

Good Industrial Relations practice is built on balance, fairness, and proportionality. Therefore, when lawyers pursue litigation with no reasonable prospect of success, it erodes the entire Industrial Relations system.

Win, lose, or draw, lawyers are still entitled to be paid for the service rendered.

To the credit of some lawyers, their clients are usually properly advised but insist on fighting, even if the case is hopeless. However, it is at that point counsel should make a decision.

04/03/2026

A recent judgment from the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on how the Government should approach transfers and workplace decision-making concerning Non-Established workers.

In Brenda Gillian Furlonge v The Honourable Minister of Public Safety and Labour and the Attorney General, the Court examined whether the Government acted lawfully when it revoked a prison officer’s appointment and transferred her to another position in a different department.

While the case concerned a specific dispute, we have extracted 9 important lessons as outlined below⬇️

👉🏽The government has the power to transfer Non-Established Employees

The Court confirmed that the Government may transfer non-established employees even without their consent where the relevant collective agreement gives management that authority. This means that the government can reassign employees to different departments or roles as part of managing the public service.

👉🏽Managerial discretion is not unlimited

Although the Government has the authority to transfer employees, the Court made it clear that this discretion is not unfettered. Any decision must be exercised: honestly, in good faith, rationally, and for legitimate administrative reasons. Therefore, the government cannot simply move non-established employees arbitrarily.

👉🏽Procedural fairness applies

The Court confirmed that procedural fairness applies even when the government has the legal authority to act. In practice, this means employees should be given: notice of a proposed decision, an explanation of the reasons, and an opportunity to respond or make representations.

👉🏽Transfers implemented without proper process can be unlawful

The Court found that the transfers were carried out with very little notice and without giving the employee a meaningful opportunity to respond. As a result, the Court concluded that the manner in which the decision was implemented breached the rules of natural justice.

👉🏽Retrospective decisions can create legal problems

The Court held that the Cabinet decisions were implemented retroactively. This meant the employee was effectively transferred before she had any opportunity to challenge or respond to the decision, which further undermined procedural fairness.

👉🏽Victimisation must be proven

The employee alleged that her transfer was an act of victimisation after she reported a sexual assault. However, the Court held that such claims require clear evidence linking the complaint to the employer’s action. Because no such evidence was produced, the Court rejected the allegation of victimisation.

👉🏽A decision can be unlawful even if the employer has the power to act

The Court emphasized that having the legal authority to make a decision is not enough. If the decision is carried out without fairness, consultation, or proper process, it may still be declared unlawful.

👉🏽Collective agreements can become enforceable employment terms

The Court clarified that collective agreements may become legally enforceable where they are incorporated into the employee’s contract or where the parties intended them to govern the employment relationship. This reinforces the importance of collective bargaining agreements in shaping workplace rights and obligations.

👉🏽New legal arguments cannot normally be raised on Appeal

Another important procedural lesson from the case is that parties cannot generally raise new issues for the first time on appeal. Arguments that were not presented to the trial court are usually not allowed to be introduced later.

In closing, it is important to state that only non-established government workers are regulated by the Labour Code. Established workers are governed by a different set of rules.

24/02/2026

A list of things that may happen when someone loses their job with immediate effect⬇️

👉🏽Financial Shock👈🏽

Since employment is usually the household’s primary income source, sudden dismissal can mean:
👉🏽Loss of steady income
👉🏽Inability to meet mortgage or rent payments
👉🏽Difficulty paying utilities, school fees, transportation, and groceries
👉🏽Rapid depletion of savings
👉🏽Increased debt or reliance on credit

👉🏽Psychological and Emotional Impact👈🏽

Employment is not just about money. It is tied to identity, dignity, and self-worth. As such, arbitrary dismissal often triggers:
👉🏽Shock and humiliation
👉🏽Anger, especially if the dismissal was unfair
👉🏽Anxiety about providing for dependents
👉🏽Depression or feelings of failure
👉🏽Sleep disturbances
👉🏽Loss of confidence

👉🏽Family and Relationship Strain👈🏽

When income disappears suddenly:
👉🏽Tension may arise between partners
👉🏽Parenting stress increases
👉🏽Children may feel insecurity or instability
👉🏽Household dynamics can shift

👉🏽Social and Reputational Damage👈🏽

Job loss can lead to:
👉🏽Gossip or reputational harm
👉🏽Difficulty finding new employment
👉🏽Social withdrawal due to embarrassment

👉🏽Physical Health Effects👈🏽

Chronic stress from sudden unemployment can contribute to:
👉🏽High blood pressure
👉🏽Weakened immune system
👉🏽Headaches and chronic fatigue
👉🏽Increased risk of heart disease

Which of the above-mentioned have you experienced if you ever loss a job with immediate?

23/02/2026

A long but worthy read to observe how some employers treat employees in Antigua.

One of our clients, a former Payroll Clerk of Jumby Bay Resort Ltd, filed a complaint in the Industrial Court for unfair dismissal and reputational damage arising from a payroll error in late 2024.

Our client was employed at the Five-Star Resort from December 2013 until their termination on February 12, 2025. Over their eleven years of dedicated service, our client progressed from Accounts Payable Clerk to Junior Accountant and was later appointed Payroll Clerk in May 2024. Their responsibilities included processing payroll for Jumby Bay Resort Ltd, Jumby Bay Island Company, and the staff of private residences, notwithstanding that they are separate legal entities.

The dispute arose from payroll processing for the pay period ending December 2024. Standard operating procedures required multiple layers of managerial review and approval before the payroll was uploaded to the bank for payment. However, due to the increased Christmas workload, our client's immediate superior instructed them to bypass the first level of review and submit payroll directly to the Director of Human Resources for onward passage to the Director of Finance.

After the payroll was vetted and approved, our client was instructed to upload the payroll to the bank. When the payroll was finally processed, management was alerted that some employees had not received certain allowances and overtime payments. An internal review by our client and their immediate superior identified the formula error within the payroll system. The affected employees were duly advised and compensated in the very next payroll cycle. In fact, all outstanding sums were paid at least one month before our client was terminated.

At this juncture, we must state that payroll discrepancies, particularly during high-volume periods, are not uncommon in business operations. That is precisely why internal approval systems exist. In this case, the payroll was reviewed and approved by the Director of Human Resources and subsequently the Director of Finance before being released to the bank. Yet, no disciplinary action was taken against those who reviewed, approved, and authorized the payroll. Instead, the most junior employee in the chain was singled out and ultimately dismissed.

Over a period of a month before the termination was effected, we advised the Employer that no misconduct existed based on the facts. At most, the matter amounted to a performance issue that warranted guidance, retraining, or reinforcement of procedures. There was no allegation of dishonesty, no personal gain, and no deprivation of employees’ basic wages. Nevertheless, our client was treated as though they had committed some atrocity.

Our client was summoned to a meeting and interrogated in a manner wholly disproportionate to the issue. They were immediately suspended without pay pending further investigation. The suspension was subsequently extended on multiple occasions. However, following our intervention, the company reversed its position and compensated our client for the unpaid suspension days, but maintained the suspension with pay.

In February 2025, our client was summoned to attend and attended what was described as a disciplinary hearing. On that same day, our client was informed that they were no longer on suspension, but were instructed not to return to work until further notice. We immediately wrote to management challenging what we believe amounted to an unlawful lockout. Following our letter, our client was summoned to attend another meeting scheduled for the following day.

Upon our client’s arrival at the scheduled meeting, they were informed that their services were no longer required with immediate effect and were handed a letter of termination. Our client’s dismissal sent shockwaves throughout the Resort, where they were well-regarded and respected. However, that did not prevent the circulation of damaging rumours suggesting that our client’s termination was related to theft. The Employer knew those suggestions were false, yet failed to take steps to correct the narrative even after we brought the issue to its attention.

The disproportionate response, the failure to treat the matter as a performance issue, the selective attribution of blame to the most junior employee, and the absence of accountability for those who approved the payroll form are central pillars of the unfair dismissal claim now before the Industrial Court.

Now that proceedings have commenced and service was being effected, the Employer refused to accept service and sought to redirect the matter to a third party. However, we believe that the Industrial Court Rules are clear. Service is effective once documents are delivered at the principal place of business, whether or not the Employer chooses to acknowledge receipt.

The matter now awaits adjudication.

21/01/2026

Can an employee go to a party while on sick leave?

Short answer: “It depends.”

Sick leave is granted, in principle, because an employee is unfit for work. Therefore, attending a party may not be problematic in limited circumstances, including:

👉🏽The medical condition (stress, anxiety, mild flu) allows light social activity.

👉🏽The employee’s conduct at the party does not delay the recovery process.

Attending a party while on sick leave may amount to misconduct in some circumstances, including:

👉🏽The employee’s condition (severe back injury, highly contagious illness, or post-surgical recovery) reasonably prevents partying.

👉🏽The employee engages in strenuous activity (dancing all night, drinking heavily).

👉🏽Medical advice expressly restricts such activity.

If an employer reasonably believes there may be an abuse of the sick leave, they can raise the issue with the employee. However, employers should not assume abuse simply because an employee was seen at a party.

Disciplinary action without investigation may itself be unfair and can lead to a claim against the employer for engaging in unfair labour practice.

This post is for general information and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each employment matter depends on its specific facts, applicable laws, and workplace policies. For advice tailored to your situation, seek professional guidance or contact ConsultHIM.






07/01/2026

Does an employee have to inform their employer if they plan to travel overseas while on certified sick leave?

The short answer is, “it depends.”

An employee on certified sick leave is not automatically prohibited from travelling. So, employers must be careful not misguide themselves and arbitrarily subject employees to disciplinary action.

The following is settled law:

👉🏽 It is not an offense for an employee to travel while on certified sick leave, unless there is a policy or agreement preventing the employee from traveling without the employer’s consent or knowledge.

👉🏽Traveling while on certified sick leave is not evidence that the employee is fit to resume work.

👉🏽 Traveling overseas does not invalidate a certified sick leave.

Traveling while on sick leave may be problematic where a clearly defined workplace policy or contractual agreement expressly requires permission or prohibits travel during sick leave.

Key takeaway for employers:

👉🏽If you want to regulate an employee’s ability travel when on sick leave, it must be clearly written and communicated.

👉🏽 If a policy does not exist to regulate employee movement while on sick leave, you must act reasonably if you intend to introduce said policy.

Key takeaway for employees:

👉🏽Your medical certificate stands, unless there is proof of abuse or a clear rule saying otherwise.

👉🏽 Always remain flexible as employers are free to introduce policies to regulate its operations.

At ConsultHIM, we help employees and employers understand where policy ends and rights begin.

Need advice on sick leave, discipline, or workplace policies? Contact us today.






Address

Sir George Walter Highway
Saint John's

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 18:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 18:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 18:00
Thursday 08:00 - 18:00
Friday 08:00 - 18:00
Saturday 08:00 - 18:00

Telephone

+12687838773

Website

,

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Consult HIM posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Consult HIM:

Shortcuts

Share

Category