Communication, Transport and General Workers Trade Union v Trinidad and Tobago (B.W.I.A. International) Airways Corporation

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Valere, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 April 1993
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: No. 25 of 1991
• Date: 02 April 1993

Industrial Court

Valare, J.; Tull, J.

No. 25 of 1991

Communication, Transport and General Workers Trade Union

and

Trinidad and Tobago (B.W.I.A. International) Airways Corporation

Mr. W. Winchester Industrial Relations Consultant

Mr. P. Cezair Industrial Relations Consultant

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal for serious deficiencies in general performance of duties — Gross negligence or misconduct — Disregard for rules — Resulting loss of revenue to corporation and damage to marketing and customer service profiles — Finding that worker flouted specific and general directions of company's policy — Dismissal justified — Dispute dismissed.

Valere, J.

1 This is a dispute brought by the Communication, Transport and General Workers Trade Union (hereinafter called “the Union against Trinidad and Tobago (B.W.I.A. International) Airways Corporation (hereinafter called “the Company”).

2 The dispute arose over the dismissal of one Robert Carmino (hereinafter called “the Worker”) a former employee of the Company. The worker was dismissed by letter dated June 15, 1990 and reads as follows:

“1990 June 15

Mr. Robert Carmino

Route Controller

Revenue Control Dept.

Piarco.

Dear Mr. Carmino,

The Corporation has had to bring to your attention over the years serious deficiencies in your general performance to the extent that you have been issued appropriate warnings inter alia over time.

I note hereunder the most recent of these:

• (i) Offloads/Control of flights on your assigned Toronto route February May 1990.

• An analysis was done with you re the above and the sane attributed a considerable number of offloads to flights for which you had full responsibility. The passenger offload for the northbound services totaled one hundred and eighty (180).

• It was clear from our discussions that you neglected to follow the prescribed guidelines established for overbooking which emanated from the Summer 1989 post mortem resulting in the above offloads. This most unacceptable situation of gross negligence/misconduct gave rise to significant increase in Corporation expenditure and compromised our customer service in no small way.

• (ii) Changes made to passengers reservations from high yield to low yield configuration.

• I refer to my RE/084/90, your response and our subsequent discussion which indicates by and large, a total disregard for rules and a continuing penchant for “assisting” friends and “regulars” to the detriment of the Corporation in so far as its revenue earning capabilities are concerned.

• The Corporation has been inundated with complaints time and again from some travel agencies that some members of the Revenue Control Department have been dealing directly with others contrary to policy in offer to satisfy their “requests” either for reservations after close out or for down grades to lower fare categories. They inferred that they have been unfairly treated and have been put at a disadvantage causing them loss of revenue. They have further stated that confidence in the Corporation's integrity has been diminished as a result.

• This is not the first of its kind as far as you are concerned and as intimated in (i) above, critically compromises and embarrasses the Corporation. The possibilities herein are many.

• The inappropriateness of your actions can and most likely may have caused the Corporation to lose significant amounts of revenue as a result of the differential between the high and low fares. The extent of same therefore may be considered to be fraudulent.

• You will no doubt recall the responsibility the Corporation placed on our department for maximizing its revenue earning potential especially since its cut over to the “bucket system”. Not only does the bottom line depend on our performance but more importantly the very existence of the Corporation is hinged to it. This has been emphasized and overemphasized at meetings I held with the department. The Managing Director himself met with the staff to sensitize there accordingly and to warn of the dangers of failure. You have been a part of thin all.

• Having reviewed the above and also your file as previously intimated, the Corporation is convinced that you have consistently and deliberately violated its rules and procedures and as a result the trust reposed in you is now severely eroded. Your actions have invariably lead to unplanned costs and loss of revenue and has caused irreparable damage to our marketing and customer service profiles not to mention your own integrity in the department.

• Consequently, you have been found guilty of gross misconduct and it has also been determined that you are not longer able to meet the service requirements of the Corporation. For all of the above and for good reason, you services are terminated with effect frown June 15, 1990.

• Before payment is made to you for any accrued vacation leave standing to your credit and/or any other sums which may be due from the Corporation as a result of your employment to date, you are required to return all Corporation property in your possession including.

  • (1) BWIA International and Airports Authority Badge

  • (2) Other

• Additionally, recovery action will be taken for any amounts due by you to the Corporation.

Yours respectfully,

Kelvin Smith Manager Revenue Control

c.c. DD - Bertrant (Ag.)

ID - Winford

SB - Grant (Ag.)

II - De Souza

KS:np.”

3 At directions the Chairman of the Essential. Services Division directed the parties to submit written Evidence and Arguments and this was duly complied with.

4 In addition, the Court heard oral testimony from both parties, the worker giving evidence on behalf of the Union and one Kelvin Smith, Manager, Revenue Control gave evidence on behalf of the Company. Where there was objection to the written evidence of either party, the party making the allegation was required to prove same by oral testimony. Further, attached to the written evidence were appendices namely, correspondence passing between the worker and the Company. These were all accepted by the parties except appendix “H” to the Company's written evidence, as it was ruled inadmissible.

5 The...