Communication Workers' Union v Catelli Primo Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Pounder, M.
• Judgment Date: 04 November 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 9 of 1990
• Date: 04 November 1991

Industrial Court

Valere, P.;

Pounder, M.

9 of 1990

Communication Workers' Union

and

Catelli Primo Ltd.

Appearances:

Mr. D. Olivier, President (first) then Mr. Bholan Dan, Executive Officer for party no. 1.

Mr. P. Cezair, Industrial Relations Consultant for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Collective agreement — Breakdown in negotiations for conclusion of collective agreement — Failure of negotiations — Lockout action — Referral of dispute to court by Minister — Disputed items — Leave of absence — Personal file — Job security — Retrenchment — Cost of living allowance — Wages and classification — Settlement of court.

Pounder, M.

1 This trade dispute arose out of a breakdown in negotiations between the Communication Workers' Union (“the Union”) and Catelli Prime Limited (“the Company”) for the conclusion of a collective agreement on behalf of the hourly, weekly and piece rated workers of the Company for the period 1st September, 1987 to 31st August, 1990.

2 The Union reported the dispute to the Honourable Minister of Labour on 11th July, 1988 and conciliation by the Minister continued up to 29th September, 1989 but failed to resolve the dispute.

3 The Company on 2nd October, 1989 advised the Minister of its intention to take lock-out action and took such action in accordance with section 60 of the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 88:01 (“the Act”) on the 4th October, 1989. A period of three (3) months continuing lock-out action having clasped, the Union on the 5th January, 1990, requested the Minister to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court (“the court”) under section 61(d) of the Act. The Minister referred the dispute to the court on 9th January, 1990.

4 The parties had executed a Memorandum of Agreement on items agreed to in bilateral negotiations which was sent to the court in accordance with section 58(2) of the Act under cover of Memorandum from the Ministry of Labour dated 16th October, 1989.

5 The Company is engaged in the processing of foodstuffs and sells approximately 86% to 90% of its products to local distributors who are exclusive agents for specific brands of its products. Catelli Limited, a Canadian Company owns 46.2% of the equity of the Company and three of the distributors, companies incorporated and operating in Trinidad and Tobago, own some 20% of the equity in equal shares.

6 When the dispute came before the court the matters remaining for determination by the court were.

• Article 3 - Leave of Absence - Section (2)(h) Time off for Union Business

• Article 11 - Personal File - Section 2 Article 21 - Job Security

• Article 23 - New Technology (New Article)

• Schedule 1 - Terms and Conditions in respect of Retrenchment - Sections 2 and 9

• Schedule 3 - Leave of Absence - Section 1(k) (New Section)

• Paternity Leave - Section 9 (New Section)

• Schedule 4 - Allowances - Section 3 Cost of Living Allowance

• Schedule 4 - Wages and Classification

7 During the course of the proceedings the parties with the consent of the court withdrew Article 23 and Schedule 3, section 1(k)

8 We shall now deal with the issues remaining in contention.

ARTICLE 3 - LEAVE OF ABSENCE, SECTION 2(b), TIME OFF FOR UNION BUSINESS

9 The Union has proposed that an employee to whom leave of absence was granted to accept a position with the Union should be paid severance benefits for the period of service up to the date he was due to resume work if his former job with the Company or a similar job is not available and the employee is unwilling to accept a job of lower status.

10 The former collective agreement provided for payment of severance benefits in such circumstances up to the last date of physical employment with the Company. The Company contended that the existing provision is fair and reasonable.

11 We find no justification for extending this provision and we therefore do not accept the Union's proposals.

ARTICLE 11 - PERSONAL FILE

12 The Company has proposed an amended wording of the clause in this Article dealing with an adverse entry in an employer's file in order, it states, to express more clearly the circumstances in which a warning letter may not be used as a basis for disciplinary action.

13 The Company asserts that the proposed amendment more accurately defines the nature of the adverse entry and the circumstances in which its application would be restricted and reflects the long held practice followed by the Company.

14 The former agreement provided that an adverse entry should not be taken into account after nine (9) months of issue in any contemplated disciplinary action against an employee and that the entry should he removed from his personal file after this period of time provided there was not a recurrence of the misdemeanour during the period.

15 The Union contended that the section should remain as in the former agreement in that it serves the purpose for which it was designed which we understood to mean, that it was not intended to be restricted to warning letters only.

16 On consideration of the arguments advanced by the Union, and the Company we were not satisfied that a sufficient case was made out for the proposed amendment and consequently we reject the Company's proposal.

17 We are of the opinion, however, that the parties should seek to clarify to their mutual satisfaction in future negotiations the circumstances in which this restriction should apply.

ARTICLE 21 - JOB SECURITY

18 The Company has proposed an amendment to the existing section to include a provision for contemplated changes in working hours by the Company and has suggested a draft amendment. The Union, however, contends that the provision should remain as in the former agreement.

19 The Article deals with the procedure to be followed by the Company if circumstances arises which may warrant a reduction in the work...