Grell and Company Ltd v Construction and Allied Workers Union

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Sealey, C.
• Judgment Date: 24 January 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 110 of 1978
• Date: 24 January 1991

Industrial Court

Sealey, C.

110 of 1978

Grell and Company Ltd.

and

Construction and Allied Workers Union

Appearances:

Mr. M. Daly S.C., for Party No. 1

Mr. A.R. Campbelle, President General for Party No. 2

Industrial law - Contract of service — Termination — Dismissal for driving company's vehicle under influence of alcohol and failure to report an accident — Whether dismissal harsh and oppressive — Finding that worker warned about effects of excessive drinking — Dismissal justified.

Sealey, C.

1 Balliram Maharaj began working with Grell and Company Limited (“the Company”) as a porter. He was subsequently appointed driver/salesman and was holding this position when he was dismissed by letter dated November 28, 1977.

2 The Company's letter read as follows:

“Dear Mr. Maharaj,

We regret to inform you that effective 25th November, 1977 your employment with Grell & Co. Ltd. have been terminated. This course of action was taken for the following reasons:

• (1) Driving the Company's vehicle TW 1219 under the influence of alcohol on Tuesday 22nd November, 1977.

• (2) Failing to report an accident which took place on Tuesday 22nd November, 1977 involving vehicles HU 7759 and TW 1219 which was at the time driven by you to the following authorities.

  • (a) The Police Department

  • (b) The Insurance Company

  • (c) Your employers (Grell & Co. Ltd.).

You will be paid one month's wages from 25th November, 1977 in lieu of notice end you will be reimbursed the sum of two Hundred & Forty Three dollars & Fifty cents ($243.50) which represents the monies paid by you to Mr. Steven Beepat to cover the cost for the damages of vehicle HU 7759 as a result of the above accident. We take this opportunity to thank you for your services and wish you all the best in the future.”

3 The Construction and Allied Workers' Union (“the Union”) challenged the dismissal on the grounds that it was harsh and oppressive and not in accordance with good industrial relations practice.

4 Balliram Maharaj admitted in evidence that he was involved in the motor vehicle accident referred to in the letter of dismissal but denied that he was driving under the influence of alcohols on November 22, 1977 the car HU 7759 stopped suddenly in front of him and although he applied his brakes he was unable to avoid coming into contact with that vehicle. He nevertheless agreed to meet the driver at the Company's premises the next morning. When the driver failed to turn up at the time arranged, on the advice of his supervisor, Shair Mohammed, he left on his rounds. He had reported the accident to the supervisor who had assured him that no disciplinary action would be taken against him as it was a minor accident. The driver of the other vehicle eventually came to the Company's premises on November 24 and in the presence of Mohammed he paid the driver, Steven Beepat, for the damage to his vehicle, Beepat signed a receipt for the sum paid. He had not informed the company with which the Company's vehicle was insured because he did not know the name of the Company and, in any case, he had not been informed that he was required to make a report in the event of an accident.

5 He had not reported the matter to the Police because he and Beepat agreed that it was a minor accident and they had been able to arrive at a settlement.

6 Maharaj also testified that about 5.00 p.m. on January 17, 1977 he was...