Caribbean Industrial Research Institute Association v Caribbean Industrial Research Institute et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Braithwaite, C.
• Judgment Date: 07 October 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: I.R.O. 35 of 1987
• Date: 07 October 1991

Industrial Court

Braithwaite, C.;

Beckles, V.P.

I.R.O. 35 of 1987

Caribbean Industrial Research Institute Association

and

Caribbean Industrial Research Institute et al

Appearances

Mr. D. Mendes - Attorney-at-law for party no. 1.

Mr. G. Bowrin - Attorney-at-law for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party no. 2.

Industrial law - Collective bargaining — Statute — Industrial Relations Act, section 84 — Application for orders in respect of industrial relations offence — Failure to recognise union and in good faith to treat and enter into negotiations for collective bargaining — Section 40(1) — Trade union obtaining certification to be recognised by employer and employee to meet and treat in good faith — Section 148(a) — Procedure for collective bargaining — Section 10(3)(b) — Power of court — Whether Institute guilty of offences — Interpretation of provisions — Finding that charges not substantiated — Application dismissed.

Braithwaite, C.

1 The Caribbean Industrial ‘Research Institute Association is a trade union (hereinafter palled “the Union”) certified as a recognised majority union and bargaining agent of the monthly paid workers of the Caribbean Industrial Research Institute (hereinafter called “the Institute”) incorporated by the Caribbean Industrial Research Institute Act Chapter 85-52. In this matter, the Union has on 28th April, 1987 made application to the court under section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act (the Act) for orders against the Institute, its Administrative Manager and its Deputy Director in respect of the industrial relations offence of failing to recognise the Union and, in good faith, to treat arid enter into negotiations with it for the purposes of collective bargaining. In this application two separate charges were made against the Institute in relation to two separate meetings that took pleas on 10th April, 1997. The first was a meeting which the Institute held with the Union on the morning of that day and the second was a meeting that it held later on that same day with the workers of the bargaining unit. The parties presented evidence and arguments in writing in accordance with section 8(5) of the Act, and the court heard addresses in elaboration of the written arguments. There was no conflict in the written evidence except in one particular. The Union had agreed to the meeting with the workers in the bargaining unit but the evidence was in conflict over the purpose for which the meeting was agreed. The court heard oral evidence on this point.

2 We deal first with the first charge particulars of which were set out in the application as follows: “On the 10th April, 1987, the Institute refused to accede to the Union's request for information and documentation for the purpose of substantiating the Institute's claim that a 5% reduction in the salaries of the mid workers was required.”

3 According to the written evidence and arguments of the Institute it undertook at the meeting to furnish the Union with the further information requested and did in fact supply it to the Union as requested. The Union did riot pursue this charge. In its written evidence and arguments it gave no evidence or argument in relation to it and had nothing to say about it at the hearing beyond accepting the Institute's written evidence. We accordingly dismiss this charge.

4 We turn now to the second charge which arose out of the meeting which the Institute held with the workers of the bargaining unit. Particulars were set out in the Union's application as follows - “On the 10th April, 1987 the Institute met directly with the said workers and solicited and/or attempted to solicit their agreement to a 5% reduction in salary.”

5 For the conduct of its operations the Institute relies in part on moneys voted by Parliament. During the second half of 1986 it ran into financial difficulties and from August found itself unable to pay salaries on time. These difficulties persisted in 1987 to the extent that the Minister of Government responsible for the operations of the Institute decided in March 1987 that remedial measures were necessary. He informed the Institute that he proposed to seek an additional provision of approximately one and a half million dollars (1.5m) to supplement the sum voted by Parliament for the year 1987, on the understanding that the institute would take measures to increase income from the projects it undertook by 20% and to - “reduce its expenditure by $1.3 million to $17.631 million. This reduction would be achieved in part, by a suspension of payment to all staff equivalent to 5% of basic salaries, with corresponding reductions in related benefits and allowances.”

6 The Institute had a meeting with the Union on 18th March to discuss this proposal with special references to the 5% reduction in salaries, but the proposed reduction was flatly rejected by the Union. The Institute then had a meeting with the Minister and as a consequence arranged a further meeting with the Union in an effort to persuade it to reconsider its decision. This meeting was held on the morning of Friday 10th April. The Union requested the Institute to supply it with certain information that it would need in giving further consideration and said it would also need to discuss it with the workers of the bargaining unit. The meeting ended on the understanding that it would have its ready by the following Wednesday 15th April.

7 About five minutes later the Deputy Director of the Institute spoke to the Chairman of the Union and got his agreement to a proposal that the Institute should itself hold a meeting on that same day with the workers of the bargaining unit in connection with the matter. The course of action taken by the Institute at this meeting gave rise to the second charge made by the Union. In its written evidence the Institute stated that the meeting was “for the purpose of informing them personally of the proposals from the Ministry.” The Union took objection to this and instead that the purpose was as set out in its own written evidence namely for the expressed purpose of appraising the said employees of the alleged financial plight of the Employer. The court decided that it would hear oral evidence on this point.

8 Evidence was given for the Union by its Chairman. He said, “I attended a meeting on April 10th at which the 5% reduction in salaries was discussed.” After a bried account of the stand taken by the Union at this meeting and its outcome he went on “After the meeting I was called in to the Deputy Director's office and he asked me whether the Union would have objection to the Institute meeting with the staff to discuss with them and appraise them of the financial plight of the Institute. I readily agreed. It is not true that the Deputy Director said that the meeting was to discuss the proposals of the Ministry. The Institute declined to lead any oral evidence.”

9 The meeting was held that same day 10th April as arranged. The Union is a House Union with officers on the promises of the Institute and its officers are themselves members of the bargaining unit. These officers, including the Chairman, attended the meeting. We reproduce hereunder the account of what took place as set out in the Union's written evidence which was accepted without challenge by the Institute.

“A meeting with 200-300 of the monthly-paid employees was held later that day. The said [Administrative Manager] addressed the gathering, but instead of restricting his delivery to an exposition of the financial status of the Employer, he talked about the general economic crisis in the country and the need for all citizens to make sacrifices about the said Minister's proposal for a 5% reduction in salary, and about the fact that the [Union] had taken the position that since other workers in the country were not taking voluntary cuts in salary, the [Union] would not be the first to do so. The [Administrative Manager] then said that though he did not wish to compromise the [Union's] position, he felt that the proposal under the circumstances.

The [Chairman of the Union] immediately shot to his feet and noted that no distinction could be made between the monthly paid employees and the [Union], that the monthly paid employees could not accept anything except through the [Union], and that the meeting was not called for the purpose of reaching a decision. [The Administrative Manager] expressed his agreement and the meeting continued.

One employee asked why no other proposal was being considered other than a 5% reduction in salary. Mr. W.W. Wiltshire a Divisional Manager of the Employer, intervened and said that it was either a 5% reduction in salary or the elimination of COLA or a 25% reduction in staff.

[The Chairman] once again protested that this was not a meeting called to take any decision. [The Administrative Manger] then replied by saying that a 5% reduction would be taken of the monthly paid employees' sacrifice in the national interest.

Despite [the Chairman's] protests the Deputy Director later addressed the meeting and said to this effect: ‘Mr. Winston Dookeran wants a reply by Wednesday. I want to see by a show of hands all those in favour of the Ministry's proposal. His audience rumbled in reply. He then said ‘Proposal Carried.’

Once again [the Chairman] protested that what had happened was illegal and that no decision could be taken on behalf of the monthly paid employees except by the Association. The meeting then ended.”

10 Counsel for the Union founded his arrangements on the proposition that the industrial relations offence of failing to comply with the provision of section 40 of the Act comprised two separate elements each of which by itself gives ground for the commission of the offence, and pointed out that the Union's application expressly covered both of those grounds. The charge laid in the application using the words of section 40 (1) of the Act, was that...