Bank and General Workers Union v The Bomb Newspaper

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Paul, S.J.
• Judgment Date: 26 January 1993
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: No. 31 of 1988
• Date: 26 January 1993

Industrial Court

Paul, J.; Thompson-Boddie, J.

No. 31 of 1988

Bank and General Workers Union

and

The Bomb Newspaper

Mr. Kyril Jack Grievance officer for Party No.1

Mrs. Phaedra Ram counsel for party No.2

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal — Worker employed as senior reporter — Dismissal for trying to destabilise operations of newspaper — Allegation of poor quality of articles submitted by worker — Article written by worker causing employer to be threatened with lawsuit — Finding that worker did not exercise necessary care and diligence in discharging duties under contract of employment — Finding that worker negligent — Employer justified in terminating worker's services — Ordered that worker be paid specific sum of money as wages in lieu of notice.

Paul, S.J.

1 This trade dispute referred to this Court under Section 59 (1) (c) of the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 88:01 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) concerns a claim made by the Bank and General Workers Union (hereinafter called “the Union”) that the dismissal of Yvonne Ramtoole (hereinafter called “the Worker”) on the 9 ^th day of June, 1987 from the Bomb Newspaper (hereinafter called “the Bomb”) was wrongful, harsh, unjust and contrary to good industrial relations practice.

2 The court having been called upon by the Union to compensate the Worker as the justice of the case may dictate, in the event that the court is minded so to do, it can only do so against a legal entity. The Bomb is not a legal entity for the purpose of this dispute for there is no evidence before the court that the Bomb is an incorporated entity.

3 A copy of a Certified Copy of Statutory Declaration of the Bomb dated the 5 ^th day of September, 1986, states that Satnarayan Maharaj and Indra Sagan Maraj do jointly and severally declare, inter alia, that they are the proprietors of the Bomb. The Declaration also states that Satnarayan Maharaj is the Printer and Publisher of the Bomb. Having regard to the evidence adduced, treat is, that Satnarayan Maharaj is the sole person responsible for running the newspaper, and the court so accepts, The court is therefore of the view that the party who should properly be before the court is at the Satnarayan Maharaj trading as the Bomb Newspaper. The said Satnarayan Maharaj is hereinafter referred to as “the Employer.”

4 The Union called as its only witness the Worker to give evidence on its behalf. The Worker testified that she worked at the Bomb since 17 ^th June, 1982 and prior to that she was in the employ of the National Target. She testified that she was employed by the Employer as a senior reporter with the Bomb, at a monthly salary of $1,974.00. She stated that as a senior reporter her duties entailed investigating news and thereafter to write and submit articles to the editor for publication.

5 The Worker testified that in June 1987 she was based at the Curepe office of the Bomb. On the 5 ^th June, 1987 however she said she was at the San Fernando office of the Bomb. Whilst there she spoke to a Dan Rampersad, the person in charge of the San Fernando office. She said that she was informed by Dan Rampersad that Ian Gooding an editor of the Bomb was dismissed the previous night by the Employer. Mr. Rampersad further told her that she was also dismissed for trying to destabilize the operations of the Bomb. The Worker stated that Mr. Rampersad informed her that the Employer requested her to go to the Curepe office on the 9 ^th June, 1987 so that she could discuss with the employer her severance benefits.

6 At the meeting with the Employer on the 9th June, 1987 the worker stated that she informed him that she had heard that she was dismissed and enquired of him whether or not that was true. The employer indicated that that was correct and she said that he then went on to accuse her and Ian Gooding of being involved in a plot to overthrow the Bomb.

7 The Worker testified that she denied the truthfulness the allegations made by the Employer. She stated that she was dismissed on the 5 ^th June, 1987 and was offered $2,000.00 as severance pay. She did not accept the offer.

8 The Worker further testified that in the year 1987, she “had no problems with the articles” she submitted. She said that neither of the editors at the Bomb had any occasion to speak to her about the quality of the articles she was submitting. She testified, that it was not unusual for an article that she submitted publication to be left out, and this obtained with respect to other senior reporters. She said given the Bomb's styling the edit would look for the more “catchy” sensational stories.

9 The Worker testified that she was aware of a High Court Action which was pending against the Bomb with respect to an article she had written and which was published on the 5 ^th June, 1987. She stated however, that she only became aware of these proceedings in September 1987 when she attended the Ministry of Labour to hold discussions with respect to her dismissal.

10 The Worker stated that the article in question was headed “Arima is Cursed.” She said she had compiled this story from other articles that were previously published by the Bomb. She indicated that this was normal procedure. She went on to state that reporters have the responsibility to ensure that libellous material are not contained in the articles submitted, however, the ultimate responsibility is on the editors who are more experienced.

11 In answer to counsel for the employer, the Worker said that in a job letter from the Employer she is described as a senior reporter. She stated that she did not recall having any problems in 1987 with the quality or standard of the articles she submitted, in fact, she stated that in 1987 most of the articles she submitted were published. She said that she could not recall if she had on any other occasion taken different stories published in the Bomb and collated them in an article, as she had done with the article “Anima is Cursed.”

12 The Worker in answer to counsel said that she did not check the veracity of the stories she used to collate the article “Arima Cursed.” She said she took it for granted that those articles were true, based on previous publications and radio reports.

13 The Worker was shown copies of articles, which she acknowledged as hers. These articles dated 22 ^nd May, 1987, 16 ^th February, 1987 and 17 ^th February, 1987 were tendered into evidence.

14 She testified that the article dated 22 ^nd May, 1987 was not just a story she had made up. She was unable to say, however, whether this article was rejected and consequently not published. With respect to the article dated the 16 ^th February, 1987 the Worker said that she could not recall how she came by the information contained therein, she went on to state that that article was most likely published because the red line drawn through it meant that article was accepted and not as counsel suggested rejected, and the fact that a page number appeared on the top of it also indicated it was accepted and that it would be published on that particular page of the Bomb.

15 The Worker when shown the article dated the 17th February, 1987, in answer to counsel stated that she recalls that this article was published on the front page of the Bomb. She conceded that there was no red line drawn through this article nor were there any of the indications as appeared on the other articles which she said would suggest that they were published.

16 The Worker stated that she was never told by the Employer that her work was unsatisfactory nor was she ever warned about producing unsatisfactory work. She said that at the time she was unaware that her article “Arima is Cursed” published on the 5 ^th June, 1987 edition of the Bomb was causing any difficulty to the Employer. She stated that the Employer at no time informed her of any problems which had arisen as a result of the said article.

17 The Worker acknowledged that though she had only worked for the first week of June, 1987 she was not given on termination of her employment two weeks salary. She testified that she was not given any notice that her employment was to be terminated nor was she given any money in lieu of notice.

18 In answer to the Union's representative in re-examination the Worker testified that her assignments were given to her by the editor and not the Employer and if there was a problem with the articles she submitted it was the editor and not the Employer who spoke to her.

19 The Employer was the only person to give evidence on his behalf. He testified that he is the publisher/proprietor of the Bomb. He stated that since 1974 he was proprietor of the Bomb and only became publisher in 1985. It was, he stated, in 1985 when he became publisher of the Bomb that he commenced to hire staff to carry out the operations of the Bomb. He stated that he employed some of the staff who were employed with the previous publisher. He indicated that he had no written agreement with them. The Worker was one of the persons the Employer hired, she was hired in the capacity of a senior...