The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Free National Movement (FNM) general election candidate and her dental care business have been ordered to pay a former employee $3,219 for wrongful and unfair dismissal related to a dispute over joining the company’s “Birthday Club”.

Helen Almorales-Jones, the Industrial Tribunal’s vice-president, in a 41-page wrtten decision dated January 26, 2026, said she “does not believe” testimony from Dr Charlene Reid, the FNM candidate for Grand Bahama’s Pineridge constituency, and owner of Easy Dental Care, that Stephona Rolle was not targeted after she refused to supply her birth date and join the “Birthday Club” that was being created for staff.

And she ruled that the “final straw” came when Dr Reid and Easy Dental Care failed to reply to Ms Rolle’s inquiry about when she was next rostered, or scheduled, to work after being removed from the staff What’s App group three days after she declined to supply her birth date. As a result, the former worker was awarded $1,398 for “constructive wrongful dismissal” and $1,820 for “constructive unfair dismissal”.

Dr Reid, in a messaged response to Tribune Business inquiries, said Easy Dental Care had swiftly complied with the Industrial Tribunal’s ruling. She said: “The Tribunal’s ruling demonstrates that the system is working to hold all parties accountable. Easy Dental complied with the ruling in an expeditious manner.

“At Easy Dental, we remain committed to providing world class service to our customers. As an employer, I also remain committed to accountability and to upholding best practices for our employees.”

The Industrial Tribunal verdict, noting that Ms Rolle had been employed by Easy Dental Care for 1.63 years prior to her departure, said of the dispute’s roots: “The employee declined to be in a ‘Birthday Club’ her employer was organising at work and refused to give the employer’s assistant her date of birth.

“She claimed that her employer retaliated against her by removing her from the Work group chat, not scheduling her for work for about a month and not responding to a letter she had sent via e-mail inquiring about the status of her employment, which amounts to constructive wrongful and unfair dismissal.

“The employer claimed that the employee was ‘inadvertently’ removed from the Work group chat without her knowledge, and was not scheduled to work because the Orthodontist with whom she worked was out of office for extended periods and business was slow.”

Ms Rolle, in her claim, alleged that on October 16, 2024, she was asked by Dr Reid’s assistant, Regina Miller, to supply her birth date because Easy Dental Care wanted to set up a ‘Birthday Club’ for staff. “She told Ms Miller she did not want to be a part of it,” the Industrial Tribunal said of Ms Rolle’s evidence.

“Ms Miller replied: ‘That’s okay, you could still give it to me.’ She again told Ms Miller that she did not want to be a part of the ‘Birthday Club’. She did not give Ms Miller her date of birth. She could see from Ms Miller’s expression that she was upset with her answer.” Ms Rolle worked at Easy Dental Care for the following two days but, on Friday October 18, 2024, alleged that she was removed from the staff’s What’s App group without explanation.

She was then the only employee not scheduled to work between Tuesday, October 22, 2024, and Saturday October 26, 2024. “All the staff were to work except her. No one told her why they took her off the work schedule. She did not work on that Tuesday and considered herself constructively dismissed by the respondent from that date,” the Industrial Tribunal added.

After speaking to other Easy Dental Care staff to try and find out when she would work next, Ms Rolle eventually e-mailed Dr Reid on November 8, 2024, to find out her employment status but received no reply. She was still not scheduled for work, and filed a trade dispute with the Department of Labour on November 15, 2024.

However, Dr Reid denied that Ms Rolle, who she described as an “hourly waged employee” who was only entitled to be paid for hours worked, was constructively dismissed either wrongfully or unfairly.

In her evidence, she asserted that Ms Rolle was “inadvertently” dropped from the What’s App group chat without her knowledge and she was unaware of this until the trade dispute was submitted to the Department of Labour. And Dr Reid countered that she was not scheduled to work because the dentist who Ms Rolle normally assisted, Dr Zeinabou, was out of office for a month between October 28, 2024, and November 21, 2024.

“There was no necessity to have the applicant in office as there was no dentist present with whom she could work,” Dr Reid told the Industrial Tribunal. “October 2024 and November 2024 were slow months with a significantly reduced number of patients booked to be seen.

“During these two months, the three dental assistants in the respondent’s employee worked significantly reduced hours compared to the previous months (August and September 2024), owing to a lack of patients. Those were the only reasons why the Applicant was not placed on the schedule during the stated period.

“In anticipation of Dr Zeinabou’s return to the office on November 21, 2024, the applicant was placed back on the work schedule and instructed to report to work on November 19, 2024. She did not report to work as requested. Instead, she informed the respondent that she would not be returning but would be continuing with her labour dispute before the Department of Labour.”

Ms Almorales-Jones and the Industrial Tribunal, in their verdict, found: “The Tribunal does not believe the respondent’s [Dr Reid’s] testimony that neither she nor the management and supervisory staff of her dental practice targeted the applicant after she refused to be a part of the proposed ‘Birthday Club’ and to give the respondent’s assistant her date of birth as requested….

“Consequently, the removal of the applicant from the WhatsApp group chat effectively prevented her from accessing important and necessary information that the respondent’s dental practice was disseminating to the employees, including the work schedules that told the applicant when she was required to work.

“The respondent did not say which group chat administrator ‘inadvertently’ removed the applicant from the chat and the circumstances in which it had occurred. Whether or not the respondent had personally removed the applicant from the chat, she is accountable for this act as the applicant’s employer,” the Industrial Tribunal added.

“The evidence does not show that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to remove the applicant from the chat, an action that effectively denied her access to communications to the employees, including the work schedules, and was likely to seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the parties.”

The Industrial Tribunal also ruled that it was too late for Dr Reid and Easy Dental Care to “remedy the breach/repudiation” of Ms Rolle’s employment contract by only restoring her to the work schedule after they became aware she had filed a trade dispute with the Department of Labour.

“The Tribunal does not believe the respondent’s testimony that she ‘would not have’ received the letter the applicant sent to the office e-mail or known about it. The respondent’s failure to respond to the applicant’s query about the status of her employment after she had been removed from the WhatsApp group chat and not scheduled to work for almost a month was the final straw,” the Industrial Tribunal added.