Lawsuit: Adjourned Sergecool v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 99

Status
Not open for further replies.
Motion to Strike is overruled as this is indeed an answer with an explanation which is what would be an appropriate response to your question. Primarily "how was he 'not around' when the decision was made?"
 
Nacho

Did you propose in general constructors chat to cancel the project?

If yes was this before segecools termination?
 
To my knowledge, it was not discussed, however, as I have previously explained in my last response.

The department is not required to take their (employee's) input into consideration when deciding what projects remain active or closed.
 
Your Honor,

Pardon my interuption, but this questioning has gone on for days for the sake of the witnesses time, and the defenses right to a speedy trial may we move on from witness tesitmony.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
@dodrio3 you may post your last questions within the next 48 hours before moving onto Closing Statements.
 
I have no further Questions you're Honour.
 
Alright, we will be moving onto Closing Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide theirs.

Nacholebraa is also dismissed given we are moving onto Closing Statements.
 
Closing Statement

Your Honour,

The Department of Construction and Transport did not take any measures to inform the plaintiff that his LOA was invalid, preventing him from rectifying it. Additionally, the DCT never requested the plaintiff to resume activity, both of which are steps an employer, whether government or private, should take before dismissing an employee based on their activity.

The Department of Construction and Transport should also be held liable to compensate the employees for the work done by their constructors. The offshore projects were canceled by the Department, and Chinatown was also canceled by the DCT in conjunction with the plaintiff's dismissal, as stated by Secretary Nacho.

The government should uphold the values of the Commonwealth and ensure fair compensation for their employees, especially when projects were terminated before their dismissal.

Finally, I express gratitude for your time in overseeing this case.
 
Thank you, the Defense may now present their Closing Statement. They have 72 hours to do so.
 
Your Honour,

It has been 72h and the defense has not made a closing Statement
 
The Commonwealth is hereby found in Contempt and I order the Department of Justice to jail/fine appropriately.

The Court will now be in recess pending a Verdict. (This will no matter what come after December 25th)
 

Verdict



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Sergecool v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 99

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Sergecool was let go unfairly due to putting a Leave of Absence.
2. The Plaintiff deserves compensation for projects they worked on.
3. The Plaintiff was not given due warning regarding their activity before the firing.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The firing of the Plaintiff was completely legal due to the LOA not being proper.
2. The Plaintiff only receives compensation for completed projects.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. On the topic of the Leave of Absence, due to one not being added into evidence by the Plaintiff. We cannot in turn state that there was in fact a Leave of Absence besides testimony both of which are arguing different things. So whether a Leave of Absence was provided cannot be confirmed nor denied.

If one was put with proper formatting then the firing would be better contested. Without evidence of the LOA, I cannot in good faith rule on that section of the complaint.

2. Although Compensation is usually found to be receiving money after a completed project. FCR 19, xEndeavour v. Commonwealth, shows that even if the project is not completed compensation is still due especially pertaining to a firing. Although the DCT Secretary does have control over the amount of compensation, compensation is still due following this Precedent.

3. If an employee is found inactive by a private entity or the Government, although good practice. The employer is not required to give a notice before termination. The act of warning an employee regarding their actions, activity, or other is only if the employer believes they should or would like to. The only other section this would be nulled by is if a contract is in place pertaining to a warning. Given this is an employment by a Government Department a contract is not signed when being hired.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Defense despite this, I will be granting $10k in compensation to the Plaintiff due to the Precedent set in FCR 19. I will also be granting $2k in legal fees.

Given this, I hereby order the DOJ to fine the Commonwealth $12k and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top