By NEIL HARTNELL

TribuneBusinessEditor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has awarded a now-Cabinet minister just 14.5 percent of the compensation he was seeking over a breach of contract battle with the Bahamas Union of Teachers (BUT).

Zane Lightbourne, presently minister of state for the environment, claimed he had suffered a near- $12,000 loss due to being denied a car allowance when the union failed to pay him “in accordance with policy or custom” for using his personal vehicle to conduct its business when temporarily appointed ‘acting president’.

Elected as the BUT’s vice-president in 2013, Mr Lightbourne was appointed to the top post twice between the years 2014 and 2016 after the incumbent president, Belinda Wilson, was suspended for “two infractions - both alleged financial misdeeds” during that period.

The now-Yamacraw MP first became ‘acting president’ from December 2014 to February 2015 after Ms Wilson and two other executive officers were suspended by the BUT’s executive committee for “alleged misappropriation of $1.3m” from the union’s pension fund. However, the trio successfully appealed their suspensions and were reinstated.

However, Ms Wilson returned only briefly as president for, in March 2015, she was suspended again by the executive committee “after they discovered duplicate payments made to a contractor hired by the union to perform construction work on one of the union’s buildings in Freeport”. This time, the suspension was upheld by the appeals committee and BUT’s annual general meeting (AGM).

Mr Lightbourne, who returned as acting BUT president for a second spell from March 2015 to April 2016, signed an employment contract affirming that he would have “access to and use of a car” to help carry out his duties with service costs paid by the union. The union’s governance manual also affirmed that a vehicle is provided for the president’s use.

However, Ms Wilson said the vehicle was stolen from her at gunpoint during an armed robbery and she was unable to return it during her suspension. The BUT was unable to purchase a replacement due to “financial constraints”, and there was no vehicle for Mr Lightbourne to use during his combined 17 months on the job. He was thus forced to use his own vehicle and spend his own monies.

But Justice Simone Fitzcharles, while finding that the now-Cabinet minister had proven his breach of contract claim, but found that “due to a lack of proof” he could not substantiate his demand for $11,684 in compensation. As a result, in her March 27, 2024, ver- dict she only awarded Mr Lightbourne “nominal” damages of $1,700 while telling both sides they must pay their respective legal costs.

“The plaintiff alleged that as the union failed to provide him with a car, this caused him to use his personal vehicle to carry out his added duties as ‘acting president’ of the defendant [the union[ ‘at a personal cost’ to him in the sum of $11,684,” justice Fitzcharles wrote in summing up Mr Lightbourne’s case.

The former BUT acting president also alleged that the union failed to follow “policy or practice” by paying him a monthly allowance of $687.39 if no vehicle was provided after this was allegedly blocked by Ms Wilson.

In his evidence, Mr Lightbourne alleged that Ms Wilson was instructed by the BUT’s national secretariat to return the vehicle provided to her when she was suspended. “Ms Wilson did not comply and later reported the said vehicle stolen while in her possession,” Justice Fitzcharles recorded.

“Mr Lightbourne testified that the acting treasurer told the executive officers that the union was unable to purchase a new vehicle for the president at that time due to financial constraints. Further, there was no other vehicle avail- able for his use as they were necessarily in use by other persons - the union’s messenger and Family Island officers.”

The Supreme Court accepted Mr Lightbourne was forced to use his own vehicle for union duties. The now-Cabinet minister wrote to Ms Wilson, now reinstated as president on September 14, 2020, asking that he be paid the monthly vehicle allowance of $687. She rejected this despite having filed her own separate legal action demanding the same sum be paid to her for the months when she was suspended.

Ms Wilson, in the BUT’s defence, argued that the union’s constitution and governance manual did not mention the role or function of an ‘acting president’. She also alleged that Mr Lightbourne’s contracts did not mention payment of a vehicle allowance, but the Supreme Court rejected her contention that he bought the claim “out of spite or malice” having lost his bid to be elected BUT president.

Justice Fitzcharles also ruled that the BUT executive committee had the authority to appoint Mr Lightbourne as acting president and that his employment contract was valid. She also determined that the executive committee had orally agreed to compensate him for using his vehicle to conduct union business.

However, she determined that his claim for near-$12,000 in compensation had “not been founded” upon any evidence presented to the Supreme Court. “Mr Lightbourne has adduced no adequate evidence to show actual loss he may have sustained for using his private car. This is a hindrance to the making of an award of damages by the court whether special or general,” Justice Fitzcharles concluded.