National Union of Government and Federated Workers v Electric Ice Company Ltd; Electric Ice Company Ltd v National Union of Government and Federated Workers at al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Braithwaite, C.
• Judgment Date: 05 June 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: I.R.O. 37 of 1987 and I.R.O. 40 of 1987
• Date: 05 June 1991

Industrial Court

Braithwaite, C.;

Beckles, V.P.

I.R.O. 37 of 1987 and I.R.O. 40 of 1987

National Union of Government and Federated Workers

and

Electric Ice Company Ltd

Electric Ice Company Ltd

and

National Union of Government and Federated Workers at al

Appearances

Mr. C. Rameshwar - Industrial Relations Officer for party no. 1 in I.R.O. 37/87 and Party No. 2 in I.R.O. 40/87.

Mr. G. Laurayne - Group Personnel Manager for party no. 2 in I.R.O. 37/87 and party no. 1 in I.R.O 40/87.

Statute - Industrial Relations Act, Part V — Industrial relations offence — Whether company or union taking industrial action otherwise than in conformity with Act — Section 40(1) — Provision for negotiation for purpose of collective bargaining — Section 66(1) — No party to dispute may take industrial action while proceedings regarding dispute are pending before court.

Industrial law - Lock out by company — Revision of collective agreement — Failure of negotiations — Strike action by union — Two separate applications heard together — Whether strike action unlawful — Whether lockout by company unlawful — Finding that company had duty to reinstate workers — Company guilty of offence — Company fined.

Braithwaite, C.

1 These two matters between National Union of Government and Federated Workers (‘the Union’) and Electric Ice Company Limited (‘the Company’) spring from the same set of circumstances and were heard together. Negotiations which had been proceeding between the parties for the purpose of arranging for the resumption of work after a lockout instituted by the Company, eventually broke down on 4th May 1987. In I.R.O. 37/87 the Union makes application, filed on that day, for an order against the Company in respect of the industrial relations offence of taking industrial action, by way of lock-out, otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of Part V of the Industrial Relations Act (‘the Act’). In I.R.O 40/87 the Company makes similar application filed on 6th May 1987 for an order against the Union and its Industrial Relations Officer in respect of the industrial relations offence of taking strike action otherwise in conformity with Part V of the Act. The parties presented evidence and arguments in writing accordance with section 8(5) of the Act, and this evidence was supplemented by oral evidence.

2 As required by section 40(1) of the Act, the Company and the Union has entered into negotiations for the purpose of collective bargaining over the revision of a collective agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of a bargaining unit of the Company's workers, of which the Union was the certified bargaining agent. The Minister failed to secure a settlement by conciliation and the Company on 19th December, 1986 commenced lock-out action in accordance with the provisions of Part V of the Act. The lock-out was still in progress on 24th March, 1987, and more than three months having by then elapsed since its inception, the Union on that date wrote the Minister in pursuance of section 61(d) of the Act requesting that he refer the dispute to the court for determination. The Minister filed the referral on Thursday 2nd April 1987.

3 This mean that the parties has to cease industrial action between themselves by a resumption of work; section 66(1) of the Act provides - “No party to a dispute may continue or take industrial action while proceedings in relation to a dispute to which that action relates are pending before the court or the Court of Appeal.”

4 The Union was therefore required to send the workers back and the Company to receive them back into employment. This is not necessarily a simple matter as pointed out in C. 1/75 between Metal Box (Trinidad) Limited and Union of Foods, Hotels and Industrial Workers. In that matter the court pointed out that an immediate and total resumption of work might not be possible and it might be necessary to phase in the resumption over a period of time. It said -

“For the type of operation carried on by the employer may be such, and the effect of the strike on it may be such, that however willing and anxious he may be to take the workers back into employment, he may be unable to commence operations immediately, or unable to do so in full at once, or unable to commence in all departments at the same time.”

5 The bargaining unit in the instant matter was a very small one comprising no more than thirteen workers. Arrangements were agreed for a letter to the President General of the Union as follows:

“However, as discussed with Union representative at the Factory this morning the Company intimated to them that the workers affected by the lock-out action would have to be recalled on a phase-in basis on or before the end of April 1987, except for the following workers named hereunder who resumed duty today.

John Mader Alfred Goodridge

Earl Sealy Eric Whyte

Adolphus Williams Jeffrey Roberts

They have all resumed their employment on the existing terms and conditions of the expired collective agreement which game up for renewal and is the subject matter in dispute.”

6 A copy of this letter was filed at the court on 9th April 1987.

7 It was contended by the Union that the Company never intended to reinstate the workers in their employment and that the agreement with the Union and a subsequent undertaking to the court served merely as a sham to corer their intention to get rid of them in victimization for having resisted the lock-out. The evidence in these matters in our view fully supports this contention.

8 Eric Whyte instead of being put pack in his previous position as Delivery Van Man was sent to work at Furness Trinidad Limited, a Holding Company of which the Company was a wholly owned subsidiary, Goodridge was one of two bridgemen who cut and sold ice by retail on the Company's premises, on shifts of 5.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 1.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. He was not in fact reinstated in this position but instead was put to work as a loader on a delivery truck. The reason given for this by the Managing Director of the Company was that the operation had been restructured and changed from the shift system with a change of working hours. This so called restructuring however turned out by his own evidence to be more than that a former employee of the Company who had retired three years earlier had been taken an to do the work of bridgeman during the lock-out with working hours of fourteen hours per day from 6.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m.

9 Earl Sealy and Adolphus Williams were two of five workers of the bargaining unit employed in the position of General. Assistant. Apparently a sudden and unexpected “decline in business activity” occurred immediately on their resumption of duty, because two days later they were retrenched on this ground. This...