A Supreme Court judge has declined to grant an injunction to stop a company from hiring a replacement for the improperly fired son of a union leader.

Chris Furbert Jr, the son of Bermuda Industrial Union president Chris Furbert, was summarily dismissed from Stevedoring Services Ltd in 2020 after a clash with management.

While an Employment and Labour Relations Tribunal ruled last year that his dismissal was unfair and ordered that Mr Furbert should receive compensation, it stopped short of ordering that he should be reinstated.

Mr Furbert launched an appeal against the decision and sought an injunction from the Supreme Court to prevent Stevedoring Services Ltd from filling his former post pending the result of the appeal.

However, in a written judgment, Puisne Judge Andrew Martin dismissed the application for an injunction stating that the relevant branch of the appeal had “no real prospect of success”.

The judge, however, added that other grounds of appeal, focused on the calculation of compensation owed to Mr Furbert, remained open.

According to the judgment, Mr Furbert was suspended from working at the Hamilton docks after a disagreement between himself and another employee allegedly resulted in a physical altercation.

While suspended, he reportedly attended the workplace in breach of his suspension and was asked to leave, but failed to do so, resulting in an exchange of words between himself and Warren Jones, the chief executive of Stevedoring Services Ltd at the time.

Mr Jones alleged that Mr Furbert told him: “I’m going to get you.

But Mr Furbert said he actually said “I get you” and “I know what you are trying to do”.

An independent witness, meanwhile, said Mr Furbert had said “I see what you are trying to do” and “your day will come”.

As a result of the exchange, Mr Jones dismissed Mr Furbert summarily for threatening him and insubordination for not leaving the premises when directed to.

However, Mr Furbert argued his dismissal was unfair and the matter was referred to the Employment and Labour Relations Tribunal.

The matter was heard by the tribunal in September 2024 and, on November 27, the tribunal found that Mr Furbert’s dismissal was unfair because SSL had failed to follow its own grievance procedures or consider alternatives.

However, the tribunal also found that given the circumstances it was not unreasonable for Mr Jones to find Mr Furbert’s comments threatening and consider his refusal to leave the premises insubordination.

While the tribunal awarded Mr Furbert compensation for his unfair dismissal, it found that it was not reasonable to order him to be reinstated to his former post.

Mr Furbert launched an appeal against the decision and sought an injunction from the Supreme Court to prevent SSL from filling the post.

While the judgment said the draft grounds of appeal raised six issues, Mr Justice Martin found that only one of the grounds involved a potential point of law — a claim that the tribunal decided not to grant reinstatement in the absence of evidence to show Mr Furbert could not reasonably be taken back as an employee.

“If there was no evidence to support the tribunal’s conclusion, then there is an arguable ground of appeal on a point of law because the court has jurisdiction to set aside a decision which is not supported by any evidence,” Mr Justice Martin wrote.

“Alternatively, if it is arguable that no tribunal could reasonably have come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, then the court can be asked to review the tribunal’s decision.”

The judge, however, said that the record of the tribunal included evidence that the relationship between SSL and Mr Furbert was “very poor”; that Mr Furbert was involved in a “violent incident”; and that he had returned to the workplace in breach of the terms of his suspension.

“Without making any detailed assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the appeal, it is apparent that there was evidence on which the tribunal could reach the conclusion that they did,” Mr Justice Martin wrote.

“On an appeal on the point of law that is put on the basis that there was no evidence on which the tribunal could come to the conclusion it did, the court does not second-guess the assessment of the tribunal provided that there was sufficient evidence to support their conclusion overall.

“In my judgment, there was evidence that was cogent and reliable on which the tribunal could come to the conclusion it did.”

As a result, the judge ruled that there was no reasonable prospect of success on the ground and dismissed the application for an injunction.

Mr Justice Martin, however, reiterated that the tribunal had found SSL failed to follow the appropriate grievance procedures; did not investigate the matter; did not allow Mr Furbert to defend his actions; did not examine if there were mitigating circumstances; and did not consider alternatives before summarily dismissing him.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.