Caribbean Tyre Company Ltd v Managers and Supervisors Association of Trinidad and Tobago

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Elcock, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 March 1993
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: No. 243 of 1987
• Date: 19 March 1993

Industrial Court

Elcock, J.

No. 243 of 1987

Caribbean Tyre Company Ltd.

and

Managers and Supervisors Association of Trinidad and Tobago

Mr. E. Prescott attorney-at-law for Party No.1

Mr. D. Mendes attorney-at-law for Party No.2

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal for knowingly engaging in serious misconduct — Worker of thirteen (13) years service — Worker holding position of senior technician — Unauthorised fitting of tyres to vehicle — No written record of transaction — Report of technical manager — Further investigation — Worker given option to resign or be dismissed — Worker resigning — Finding that worker lied — Worker's failure to make record of transaction damaging — Quite probable that worker acted in collusion with junior officers in misappropriating property of company — Dismissal not harsh and oppressive — Union's claim dismissed.

Elcock, J.

1 By a written statement of Evidence and Arguments filed in these proceedings on 31st December 1990, the Managers and Supervisors Association of Trinidad and Tobago (hereinafter called “the Union “) has asked this Court to find that Phillip Ragoonanan (“the Worker”) was dismissed by Caribbean Tyre Company Limited (“the Company”) from its employ from 15th June 1987, and having regard to the circumstances of his dismissal, that his dismissal was harsh and oppressive and contrary to good industrial relations principles and practices.

2 The Company for its part contended that the Worker had knowingly engaged in serious misconduct and that its decision to terminate his services was fully justified.

3 The Worker joined the Company on 1st October, 1974 as an Assistant Factory Technician, and by the date of his dismissal had risen to the position of Senior Technician, having received least three promotions in those intervening thirteen (13) years, and his salary at the time being $5,760.00 per month.

4 The Company is registered under the Companies Ordinance Chapter 31:01 and its business is principally the manufacture of motor vehicles tyres at its Plant in Point Fortin. The Union is a party to these proceedings by virtue of section 51 (1) (c) of the Industrial Relations Act (“the Act”).

5 The incident which gave rise to the Worker's dismissal occurred on 4th June, 1987. On that date a vehicle was permitted to enter the Company's compound at Point Fortin, and on the instructions of the worker four (4) tyres of that vehicle were replaced by an employee of the Company. The matter later came to the attention of the Company, and the Company instructed its Technical Manager, Mr. Raymond Aaron, to carry out an investigation into this incident and report thereon. Aaron duly prepared a report which was dated 15th June, 1987 and reads as follows:

“UNAUTHORISED FITMENT OF TYRES TO VEHICLES ON 4 ^th JUNE, 1987

Following receipt of your memo of 12th June 1987, I have investigated the matter and from views conducted the following facts have emerged.

• 1) On 4th June 1987 at approximately 1.30 p.m. a white pickup van was allowed entry into the factory compound and was driven to the Technical fitting bay by Tyre Fitter John Caton on the instruction of Senior Technician - Phillip Ragoonanan.

• 2) Four used tyres were removed from the vehicle by John Caton and replaced by four “new defective tyres” from a lot that had been returned for ozone cracking. John Caton claims that he was instructed by Phillip Ragoonanan to replace all four tyres which he remembers to be approximately 8% worn. Phillip Ragoonanan claims that only the two front tyres (which he remembers to be new) were to be changed.

• 3) There exists no written record whatsoever of the transaction. No concession note was filed. No financial adjustments were calculated.

• 4) There does not appear to be any record of the vehicle, either entering or leaving the Company's premises,

• 5) Neither Phillip Ragoonanan nor John Caton can remember the Registration number of the vehicle concerned or the name of the driver or owner accompanying the vehicle.

• 6) The four tyres taken off the vehicle are no longer on the factory's premises.

The net result of all this is that a vehicle, to date unidentified was consciously allowed into the Company's premises and refitted with tyres belonging to Caribbean Tyre Company without reference to the approved and customary rules and regulations regarding concessioning of tyres.

The Company's policy on handling of service returns is quite clear and unambiguous with respect to fitment. No defective tyres returned are to be fitted to any vehicle. The individual authorizing fitment in this incident is quite aware of this.

Finally in each and every transaction involving concessioning the relevant documentation and financial transactions must be observed.

The action of Mr. Ragoonanan in this matter represents at the very least, total negligence and abuse of authority and at the very worst approximates to fraudulent behaviour.

In the circumstances I am recommending that appropriate action be taken immediately in line with the Company's policy.

Furthermore I wish to refer to my memo of 5th July, 1984 to Employee Relations Manager/ Brinks (attached) which clearly outlines the security arrangements for vehicles entering and leaving the Company's premises for purposes of fitment of tyres. I am therefore also recommending that this area of operation be examined.

Attached are statements from Phillip Ragoonanan and John Caton.”

6 The Statement from the Worker will be referred to later in this Judgment.

7 The Company then set up a Committee of senior officers to act on Aaron's Report. The Committee made further investigations in the course of which the Worker admitted that he had lied at an earlier stage of the enquiry when he had denied having visited the home of John Caton, the fitter involved in the incident, at approximately four thirty on the morning of 15th June 1987. The worker also visited the home of the Works Director, the Factory Engineer and the Technical Manager during the course of the proceedings, sometimes accompanied by members of his family, in an effort to avoid losing his job. Furthermore, the worker disclosed to the Investigating Committee that he had not been the only one engaged in the type of conduct complained of by the Company and specifically implicated and charged other senior technicians with similar offences involving one employee of Caribbean Research Institute (CARIRI) who was one of a technical team on assignment to the Company at that time.

8 As an outcome of the Committee's investigations, the Company took the following action;

• (a) The Security Guard who had permitted the entry of the vehicle into the compound on 5th June, 1987 without recording the matter, was found to have acted in direct contravention of written instructions and in collusion with Mr. Ragoonanan and at the request of the Company his removal from the premises by his Employer was effected post haste.

• (b) Dave Charles, a Senior Technician, was found to be guilty of unauthorised and unrecorded transactions for fitment of tyres to the vehicle of one Mr. Warner, a CARIRI employee, and was dismissed after refusing an option to resign.

• (c) Mr. Warner's Employers were instructed to have him removed from Caribbean Tyre Company Limited forthwith because of his involvement in the said improper practice.

• (d) The Worker himself was given the option to resign or be dismissed, and he resigned by letter dated 15th June, 1987 which reads as follows: (It is used to R. Aaron, Technical Manager).

“I hereby submit my resignation from the Company effective immediately.

I take this opportunity to thank Caribbean Tyre Company for having given me the opportunity to work for them cover the past years”

9 The Union called two (2) witnesses in these proceedings namely, the Worker and Mr. Kenneth Ganess the Company's Technical Manager. The Worker testified that his functions at the time were basically to ensure that tyres of the required quality were produced by the Company and this required him to ensure that they be of the proper design and specification and that there be proper control of waste. He said that he had also been in charge from the technical standpoint of modernisation arrangements that were taking place at the time.

10 He also indicated that his duties included the re-examination of defective tyres that were taken off the production line and the tracing of the causes of any defects that became apparent. He also testified that his duties did not include responsibility for “service returns” (which will be defined shortly) but that from time to time, in fact quite often, in the absence of the Senior Technician (Performance), he had been called upon to do this on a very temporary basis. He also explained the functions of his job with regard to “Service returns”) and these “service returns” he defined as tyres which reached the Company's dealers or a customer and are then found to have been defective and are returned to the Company's Plant at Point Fortin.

11 According to the worker, his job was to investigate such complaints and determine whether the defects had been caused by customer use or even abuse of the tyres, or whether they were in fact the result of factory defects. He said that if the latter turned out to be the case, the tyre would be “concessioned”. To “concession” a tyre, he explained, means to ascertain the degree of its wear and tear and to exchange it for a new tyre from the Company, giving the customer a discount, that is to say, requiring the customer to pay for the amount of wear as that had taken place up to the time of “concessioning”.

12 The worker also indicated that once “concessioning” had taken place, the defective tyre would be either mutilated, or retained temporarily by the Company for further investigation; and he averred that sometimes where the defects were found to be merely...