By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Two brothers have been awarded a combined $147,500 for wrongful and unfair dismissal following a bust-up at a family-run auto repair shop over unproven allegations of stealing.

Justice Loren Klein, in a May 2, 2025, ruling recorded that Sterlyn Smith and Shavado Smith’s February 2017 departures from Ron’s Electric Motors, the Wulff Road and Claridge Road-based business run by their brother-in-law, Ron Frazier, was marked by claims “of threats of violence and a narrowly-averted physical altercation” over purported fears that a “12-gauge shotgun” was about to be produced.

“The events leading up to their termination, and the circumstances under which they departed the business, are not altogether clear. But it appears that allegations of stealing items from the shop were made against one or more of the employees,” Justice Klein said of events leading up to the brothers’ departure. 

“A staff meeting called to discuss these issues escalated into a heated and acrimonious exchange between the plaintiffs and the defendant [Mr Frazier], during which the defendant allegedly fired both plaintiffs and told them to leave the shop. Matters became even more heated, with allegations of threats of violence and a narrowly-averted physical altercation, resulting in the plaintiffs exiting the shop and not returning.”

Both brothers pursued claims for unfair and unlawful dismissal, while Mr Frazier argued that “they were summarily dismissed for gross insubordination, consisting of stealing in the one case and assault in the other case”. However, he contradicted this assertion - which was contained in his legal pleadings and central to his defence - at trial by instead alleging the duo walked off and abandoned their jobs.

Sterlyn, who was employed in a supervisory position at Ron’s Electric Motors, and had been with the company for 18 years at the time of his dismissal, alleged that there was an incident at the company on Friday, February 3, 2017, involving claims that Mr Frazier’s nephew, Jermaine Stubbs, had stolen “some items from the store”.

“It appears that a mechanic, known only as “Froggie”, who worked at the rear of the shop, saw Jermaine (who is also an employee) throw something over the fence,” Justice Klein said of Sterlyn’s evidence. “Froggie alerted the defendant, who came to the store and confronted his nephew.

“The defendant [Mr Frazier] then proceeded to ‘beat’ Jermaine with a stick and brought him inside the workshop with the items recovered from behind the fence. These were said to include copper and lead wires and bearings. The material included wires that the first plaintiff [Sterlyn] was preparing for a job, and he said he questioned how Jermaine got ‘his’ wires.

“The defendant questioned him about the items and later showed him surveillance footage from that afternoon. That footage showed him and Kenny inside the workshop for the most part, but he explained that at some point he stepped outside, and it must have been then that Jermaine moved the items off his desk.”

Justice Klein added: “The matter rested there until Monday morning, when the defendant summoned the staff and once again pulled up the surveillance tape. This time, the defendant alleged that Jermaine admitted that it was the first plaintiff [Sterlyn] who had put him up to the theft.

“The defendant confronted the first plaintiff about this, indicating that the footage showed him depositing something in the area where Jermaine had stashed the material. The first plaintiff said that this was a drink bottle. The defendant then pressured the first plaintiff to accept responsibility for putting Jermaine up to the theft, and tried to get him to sign something to that effect.

“When the first plaintiff refused, he was told in profane language that he was fired and to get out, which led to a vitriolic exchange between him and the defendant. The second plaintiff [Shavado] then had an exchange with the defendant, which quickly escalated into an argument, and ‘rushed’ towards the defendant after the latter reached for an object where his firearm was normally kept,” the judge added.

“He was held back by the first plaintiff and other employees, and after this the brothers left the establishment. The first plaintiff did not return to the shop, except for one occasion and that was to collect a National Insurance form.

“During cross-examination, it was suggested to the first plaintiff that he was a part of the stealing ring, and that the activities were to supply a side-business operated by the brothers in direct competition with the defendant’s. There was also a suggestion, based upon an allegation in the defendant’s witness statement and the evidence of other witnesses that the first plaintiff admitted at the Friday meeting that he either stole the items, or directed Jermaine to remove the material. He denied both allegations.

“In re-examination, he indicated that of the nine to ten persons present at the Friday meeting, the persons called as witnesses for the defendant were all family members of the defendant, save for Stanley, whom he described as the defendant’s ‘gofer’.”

Shavado, who largely backed his brother’s account, “was also asked about whether he had a Business Licence for the repair of electrical motors and generators. He admitted that he obtained a Business Licence in 2014 for that kind of business, but it was a home business operated after work hours to make side money. It was also suggested to him that he abandoned his job and was never fired. He maintained that he was fired”.

Mr Frazier, in his witness statement, admitted that he “hit” his nephew and reprimanded him for stealing, but asserted that as he was inexperienced and only employed for eight he had to have been told which items to take. He alleged that Sterlyn admitted to this, and that other employees intervened to keep himself and the brothers from fighting.

Noting that surveillance footage was inconclusive, Justice Klein said an employer has the right to summarily dismiss a worker for cause - including gross misconduct - if they “honestly and reasonably believed on a balance of probability” that the employees is guilty once “a reasonable investigation” has been conducted.

But he noted, in particular, the contradiction and inconsistency between Mr Frazier’s pleadings that the brothers were summarily terminated for cause and his witness statement/trial evidence in which he maintained “that they were not fired but abandoned their employment”.

Describing this as “perplexing”, Justice Klein said the notion that the brothers abandoned their jobs undermined Mr Frazier’s contention that he had a “reasonable belief” Sterlyn was guilty of the theft that supposedly underpinned his dismissal. 

“It is clear, also, that no reasonable investigation was conducted. Apart from the brief confrontation and questioning on the evening of Friday, February 3, 2017, there was no further investigation, and the meeting of Monday could not be described as part of any reasonable investigation,” the judge added.

“Notably, in an affidavit filed with the court, the defendant indicated, for example, that he did a search of the Business Licence section after the action was filed against him and discovered that the second plaintiff had a business Licence, namely Smith’s Electrical Motors and Generator, which was apparently opened from 2014.

“It will be recalled that the operation of a rival business was relied on as part of the reason for the suspicion for the theft. But this was only being checked several years after the dismissal/departure of the plaintiffs, and then for the purposes of litigation,” Justice Klein continued.

“The defendant clearly did not conduct any reasonable investigation to ascertain whether his beliefs were justified. For all of these reasons, I therefore find that the first plaintiff was summarily and wrongfully dismissed.” He also found Mr Frazier’s explanation for Shavado’s termination “not plausible” and found the latter, too, had been wrongfully dismissed.

As a result, Justice Klein awarded Sterlyn $46,800 for wrongful dismissal, $39.600 for unfair dismissal and $3,900 in vacation entitlement for a total $90,300, while Shavado was given $57,200. This consisted of $19,500 for wrongful dismissal, $34,500 for unfair dismissal and accrued vacation entitlement of $3,200.