National Union of Domestic Employees v on. Dharrie and Company

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Beckles, C.
• Judgment Date: 24 June 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 24 June 1991

Industrial Court

Beckles, C.;

Gafoor, M.

National Union of Domestic Employees

and

On. Dharrie and Co.

Appearances:

Kyril Jack Industrial Relations Consultant for party no. 1.

O. Ramischand attorney-at-law for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Industrial law — Termination of employment — Whether justified — Alleged insubordination and aggressive behaviour — Dismissal justified.

Beckles, C.

1 Following the issuance of a Certificate of unresolved dispute by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, Employment and Manpower Resources on the 22nd February, 1989 in a matter involving the above mentioned parties, the National Union of Domestic Employees (the Union) acting in accordance with the provisions of section 51(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act Ch. 88:01 (the Act) made application to the Industrial Court for the determination of this trade, dispute.

2 The said dispute concerns the dismissal on 14th October, 1988 of Lucien Joseph (the worker) a sales clerk from the employ of N. Dharrie & Co. (the Company).

3 The Union brands the dismissal as unjustifiable, unreasonable, harsh, oppressive and contrary to good industrial relations practices.

4 The Company for its part maintains that the worker was justifiably dismissed.

5 For the Union the worker testified as the sole witness. He averred that he was employed by the Company principally as a sales clerk in its Electrical Department but he would give assistance in other departments as required. On the 14th October, 1988 at around 2.30 p.m. he was at work in the Company's hardware store at Independence Square. He asked the Manager, one Mrs. Maharaj, for his N.I.S. number but was told to return later. He did so and was given the information he requested. He did not like the manner in which Mrs. Maharaj spoke to him and he told her so, in the presence of Mr. Dharrie Maharaj the owner of the Company and father of Mrs. Maharaj.

6 Mr. Dharrie Maharaj thereupon instructed his daughter to pay off the worker. The worker denies having any altercation with Mrs. Maharaj or anyone else for that matter on that day. He denies being abusive to Mr. Maharaj and using threats to him or any one else.

7 Under cross examination by counsel for the Company, the worker admitted to having been previously suspended for misconduct. He denied ever abandoning his job. He admitted knowing one Leela Squires but denied accusing her of unchastity on the 14th October, 1988 or at all. He also denied threatening Mr. Dharrie Maharaj with police action or accusing him of stealing electrical cables from Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission.

8 He however admitted refusing to sign a letter of dismissal handed to him by Mrs. Maharaj on the said day.

9 He stated that his salary was $400 per week gross but he took home approximately $170.

10 It was therefore claimed on his behalf compensation for years of service to the Company, as well as damages...