Brotherhood of Construction and Industrial Workers' Union v Lange Ballast Contractors Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Braithwaite, C.
• Judgment Date: 14 June 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 12 of 1985
• Date: 14 June 1991

Industrial Court

Braithwaite, C.;

Valere, M.;

Benjamin, M.

12 of 1985

Brotherhood of Construction and Industrial Workers' Union

and

Lange Ballast Contractors Limited

Appearances:

Mr. L. Sankersingh, attorney-at-law, for party no. 1

Mr. A. Des Vignes, attorney-at-law for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Collective agreement — Negotiations for revision of collective agreement — Failure of negotiations — Lockout action by company — Failure to give required notice to union — Finding that oral lockout notice given — Application dismissed.

Industrial law - Industrial action — Industrial Relations Act, section 84 — Application for order in respect of industrial relations offence — Section 63(1) — Taking industrial action otherwise than in conformity with Part V of Act.

Braithwaite, C.

1 In this matter the Brotherhood of Construction and Industrial Workers' Union (‘the Union’) makes application under s.84 of the Industrial Relations Act (‘the Act’) for an order against Lange Ballast Contractors Limited (‘the Company’) in respect of the Industrial Relations Offence under s.63(1) of the Act of taking industrial action otherwise than it conformity with the provisions of Part V of the Act.

2 The Union is the recognised bargaining agent of a bargaining unit of fifty odd workers of the Company. As required by s.40(1) of the Act the Union and the Company entered into collective bargaining over the revision of a collective agreement respecting the terms and conditions of employment of the workers of the bargaining unit. This bargaining which began on 4th July, 1984 was unsuccessful and broke down without agreement after five meetings. The Union reported the matter to the Ministry of Labour as a trade dispute on 17th September and the period dun which the Ministry was required to take steps to secure a settlement of the dispute was duly extended from time to time up to the 31st January 1895.

3 The conciliatory efforts having failed by that date to bring about a settlement, the parties became entitled to resort to strike or lock-out action, end the Company took lock-out action on 11th January. The Union's application alleges that the Company did not give it notice as required by s.60(2) of the Act of its intention to take lock-out action and that the lock-out action was therefore taken otherwise then in conformity with the provisions of Part V of the Act.

4 The sale question to be determined in this matter, therefore, is whether or not the Company gave the required notice to the Union.

5 The evidence about this began with the last conciliation cession at the Ministry on 22nd January with reference being made to on earlier session on 13th December. These sessions were referred to by both sides as meetings but it is important note that on these two occasions the conciliation did not proceed by way of meetings face to face between the pasties. They were kept separate from each other and the conciliator would speak to each separately and convey its views and proposals back and forth to the other.

6 Two documents tendered by the Union were an important feature of the evidence. The first was a letter dated 12th February from the Company to the Minister and copied to the Union. It was signed by the Personnel Manager and reported that lock-out action had been taken with an account of the circumstances leading up to it. The second was a letter from the Union to the Minister dated 15th February signed by the General Secretary of the Union. It denied the statement in the Company's letter of lath February that it had given notice of intention to take lock-out action and gave the Union's version of the attendant circumstances.

7 The head of the delegation representing the Company during conciliation at the Ministry of Labour was its Personnel Manager. The delegation representing the Union comprised its Industrial Relations Officer, its Labour Officer and the three Union Shop Stewards of the bargaining unit. In his evidence about the last conciliation session on 22nd January the Personnel Manager said that he presented the conciliator with an offer and stated to him that the Company could not improve on that offer, would not sign agreement to an extension of time for conciliation beyond 31st January and that it regrettably would have to take lock-out action. This tallied fully with what he had said in his letter of 12th February. He added that a further meeting was tentatively fixed for the 30th or 31st January and that at the session on 13th December he had told t e conciliator that settlement would have to be either at the Ministry or by way of lock-out by the Company.

8 In his evidence about the 22nd January the Industrial Relations Officer went no further than to admit that early in the conciliation the conciliator had told him that he had formed the impression that the Company did not wish to go to the court and that this possibly meant that the Company intended to take lock-out action. The Union's letter 3of 15th February however gave a fuller account. It acknowledged that the Company's offer was presented as its final offer and said “our representatives broke off discussions on the understanding that the executive of our Union and the workers would have to be consulted before any reply to the Company's offer could be given”. It added that no further meetings were arranged. This seems odd having regard to the fact that the Union had undertaken to give its reply after certain necessary consultations, in the firm knowledge that the last day for conciliation was barely more than a week off on 31st January. However that may be, the letter went on to May that on 29th January the Industrial Relations Officer informed the conciliator that the Union could not meet for the purpose by 31st January and was requesting an extension of time, On the following day 30th January, it said, the conciliator conveyed to the Industrial Relations Officer the Company's reply that it did not agree to any extension of time.

9 According to the version of the Personnel Manager the conciliator informed him that the Union had said that it could not meet on 30th or 31st January and wanted an extension of time beyond the 31st. He replied that the Company would not agree to an extension and that the Company would take lock-out action if the Union did not agree to accept the Company's offer during the period within which the Company was permitted to commence such action. He informed the Shop Stewards of this development and they subsequently came to his office in his absence and left a message that they were prepared to accept the Company's offer. In the light of this development he spoke by telephone to the Industrial Relations Officer on 1st February. The Industrial Relations Officer said that the Union would not stand in the way of the workers entering into individual contracts of employment in...