All Trinidad Sugar and General Workers Trade Union v Non Pareil Estates Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Khan, P.
• Judgment Date: 11 April 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 86 of 1989
• Date: 11 April 1991

Industrial Court

Khan, P.

86 of 1989

All Trinidad Sugar and General Workers Trade Union

and

Non Pareil Estates Limited

Appearances

Mr. Basdeo Panday - Attorney-at-law for party No. 1.

No appearances on behalf of party no. 2.

Industrial law - Trade dispute — Termination of services of 17 workers — Retrenchment — Whether unjustified — Whether employer exhausted all possibilities to provide alternative employment — Failure of company to present evidence and arguments — Company hiring new workers to do same kind of work done by workers prior to their termination — Finding that dismissal harsh and oppressive — Order that workers be reinstated without loss of wages and benefits — Order for payment of damages.

Khan, P.

1 On 31st December, 1988 Non Persil Estates Limited (“the Company”) terminated the services of 17 of its permanent workers. These workers (“the workers”) were;

NAME	LENGTH OF SERVICE ON TERMINATION
Kenneth Ragbir*	12 years and 2 months
Martin Theodore*	12 years and l month
Sookiah Seeberan	9 years and 1 month
Raffina Gunners	8 years and 1 month
Jean Pollard	8 years and 1 month
Channan RamcharitAr*	6 years and 3 months
Anjernee Poonwassie	5 years and 8 months
Farzan Khan*	5 years and 2 months
Dolly Harrinanan	12 years and 1 month
Sheriff Mohammed	12 years and 1 month
Boodoosingh*	10 years and 8 months
Afzal Mohammed*	8 years and 9 months
Robins Joseph	8 years and 1 month
Chaitram Manawah*	7 years
David Rag'bir*	6 years and 1 month
Marion Ragbir*	5 years and 3 months
Dolly Seecharan	3 years and 4 months

2 Except for the worker Sheriff Mohammed, who was a foreman, all of the workers were employed as general agricultural labourers on the Company's estates at Oropouche Road, Sangre Grandee The workers whose names are marked with astericks were paid on the date of their termination wages fortnightly at the rate of $38.00 per day and the others at the rate of $34.03 per day except for Sheriff Mohammed who was paid at the rate of $45.75 per day. A fortnight consisted of 10 days work.

3 According to the Certificate of Unresolved Dispute issued by the Honourable Minister of Labour, Employment and Manpower Resources (“the Minister”), the Union reported a trade dispute to him on 26th January 1989 concerning the termination of the workers' services by the Company. The Minister's Certificate of Unresolved Dispute dated 25 July, 1989 stated inter alia:

“The dispute concerns the retrenchment with effect from December 31st 1988 of the…workers……

The Union submitted that the Employer had failed to exhaust all the possibilities at its disposal to provide the workers … with alternative employment commensurate with their experience, skill and ability. In the circumstances, the Union deemed the retrenchment of the workers to be unjustified.

The employer contended that in view of the re-structuring exercise at the estate, the workers … had become surplus to their needs. Therefore, their retrenchment in the circumstances had been justified.”

4 Consequent upon the Minister's inability to settle the trade dispute between the Union and the Company by conciliation, the Union applied to the court for the determination of the trade dispute pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, Chap. 88:01 (“the Act”) on 23rd August, 1989. Consequent upon the Union's said application, the Honourable President summoned the Union and the Company for the purpose of giving directions to them and for hearing their respective views concerning the periods which were reasonably necessary to enable them to fairly and adequately present their respective cases to the court and to receive the court's directions for the hearing and determination of the trade dispute. This summons for directions was heard on 1st November, 1990 and Mrs. C. Dowlat, Attorney at Law, appeared on the Company's behalf. At the hearing, the Honourable President directed inter alia after hearing the views of the parties' respective representatives.

1

that on or before 10th December, 1990, each party to the dispute deliver 6 copies of the Evidence and Arguments on which each party intended to reply at the hearing of the trade dispute to the Registrar; 2. that on or before 14th December, 1990, the Registrar a deliver a copy of each party's Evidence and Arguments to the other party; and 3. that the trade dispute be fixed for conciliation, before His Honour Mr. G. Benjamin on 17th December, 1990 at 9.00 a.m.

5 The Union complied with the above directions and filed its Evidence and Arguments in writing on 14th November, 1990. The Company failed to comply with the directions. By letter dated 10th Decembers 1990, (the last day fixed by the court for the filing of Evidence and Arguments) Mrs. Rowlat made the following application to the court:

“Trade Dispute No. 86 of 1989

Re. A.T.S.G.W.J.T.U. v. NON PAREIL ESTATES LIMITED

I act on behalf of Non Pareil Estates Limited.

Further to directions obtained from your Court, December 10th 1990 was the last date given for the' submission of evidence and arguments in the above matter.

Unfortunately, while attempting to work out a settlement, time for submission has expired. I would be most grateful if I can be given a two week extension from the 10th December, 1990 to allow for submission of the relevant documents.

Carol Cuffy Dowlat,

Attorney at Law”

6 By Order dated 11th January, 1991, the court extended the time to 31st January, 1991 to enable,, the Company to present its Evidence and Arguments to the court and fixed the trade dispute for hearing on 7 ^th March, 1991 at 2.00 p.m. A copy of the Honourable President's Order having been duly served on the Union and on the Company, the trade dispute came on for hearing before me on 7th March, 1991. By that day the Company's Evidence and arguments had not been presented to the court. At the hearing, Mrs. Benjamin, attorney-at-law, held Mrs. Dowlat's brief and made an application to the court for a further extension of time to enable the Company to present its Evidence and Arguments to the Court and also for an adjournment of the hearing. Both applications were made because Mrs. Dowlat was at that time out of the country. Mrs. Benjamin informed the court that Mrs. Dowlat was expected back in about a week's time and she applied for an extension of time of one week for the filing of the Company's Evidence and Arguments. Notwithstanding the objection of the Union's Attorney, I granted a further extension of time to 15th March, 1891 to the Company for the filing of its Evidence and Arguments and I adjourned the hearing peremptorily to 3rd April, 1991 at 2.00 p.m. I further ordered that should the Company fail to file its Evidence and Arguments as ordered or appear at the hearing on 3rd April, 1991 at 2.00 p.m. the trade dispute would be heard ex parte. Despite all the indulgences granted by the Court to the Company and its attorney, the Company failed and/or refused to present its Evidence and Arguments to the court as ordered and failed and/or refused to appear at the adjourned hearing of ‘the trade dispute on 3rd April, 1991. In the event, I proceeded to hear and determine the trade dispute in the absence of the...