National Union of Government and Federated Workers v National Insurance Property Development Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Khan, J.,Pounder, J.
• Judgment Date: 09 March 1993
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: No. 197 of 1988
• Date: 09 March 1993

Industrial Court

Khan, J.; Pounder, J.

No. 197 of 1988

National Union of Government and Federated Workers

and

National Insurance Property Development Co. Ltd.

Mr. C. Bowrin First Deputy Industrial Relations Officer for Party No.1

Mr. Williams Thompson Industrial Relations Consultant for party No.2

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal for continued failure to sign attendance register and for being absent without authority — Principles of natural justice — Opportunity to be heard — Worker never told of consequences other than reduction of pay — Worker not given opportunity to be heard — Worker to be paid specific amount of damages — Worker not to be reinstated.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 This dispute concerns the dismissal of Francis Frederick, labourer employed by the National Insurance Property Development Company Ltd (“the Company”). Frederick was dismissed by the Company for his continuing failure to sign the attendance register and for being absent without authority. The National Union of Government and Federated Workers (“the Union”), representing the worker, contends that the Company acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of natural justice by not giving the worker an opportunity to be heard in his own defence.

2 The Honourable Minister of Labour in pursuance of section 59(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, Chap. 88:01 (“the Act”) certified the dispute to be an unresolved dispute on 5th October, 1988 and the matter was referred by the Union to the Industrial Court (“the Court”) on 3rd November, 1988.

3 The parties were directed by the President of the Court on 11th May, 1992 to deliver to the Court Evidence and Arguments in writing on which each party intended to rely not later than 26th June, 1992 and the parties duly complied.

4 The matter came on for hearing on 10th September, 1992 and oral testimony was given by Francis Frederick for the Union and by Antonio Affonso, Supervisor and Noel Garcia, General Manager of the Company for the Company.

5 The letter of dismissal reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Frederick,

Re: Refusal to Carry out Instructions and Excessive Absenteeism

I refer to my memoranda of 16th June, 1987, 21st July, 1987, 23rd July, 1987 and 8th September, 1987. Additionally, I refer to my discussions with you on 17th July, 1987, and 4th September, 1987.

As you may recall, these memoranda and discussions dealt with your excessive absenteeism, the need for you to sign the attendance register and your general attitude towards your job.

In all of these memoranda and discussions, you were asked to take steps to rectify your pattern of attendance and to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with the rules and regulations of the Company.

Sadly, you have neglected to rectify your ways and you have shown a callous disregard for Company policy and procedure. For the last twenty-three (23) days the Company has no record of you reporting for duty. Additionally, you have not applied for the requisite days that you have been absent from duty.

In the circumstances, the management feels that no useful purpose will be served in continuing to send you warning letters and to have further dialogue with you.

Therefore with effect from 9th October, 1.987, your services with the Company shall be terminated.

Yours faithfully.

NATIONAL INSURANCE PROPERTY

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED

NEOL GARCIA

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER”

6 Garcia stated that he thought the letter was delivered by messenger but he could not be certain of this.

7 The Union in its Evidence arid Arguments submitted that

• (a) the Company failed to substantiate the charges made against the worker;

• (b) the Company supplied no information to support the charges that the worker showed a callous disregard for Company policy and procedure;

• (c) the worker had a good record over his four (4) years of service; and

• (d) his dismissal was unjustified and inconsistent with good industrial relations practice.

8 Frederick was appointed by the Company in July, 1983 and was transferred to its Chaguaramas warehouse in March, 1987 where he worked up to the date of his dismissal under the Supervision of Affonso. At the date of his dismissal he was in receipt of wage of $9.50 per hour.

9 Frederick in his evidence stated that there were times during his employment at Chaguaramas when he did not sign the attendance register. He stated that the register was kept in the Guard Booth where there was no clock and sometimes a pen was unavailable which made it inconvenient for him to sign the register every day. He claimed that other workers also did not sign the register every day and it was common practice when the supervisor was making up the time sheets on Thursdays to get them to sign for the days they omitted to do so.

10 Frederick was evasive in his replies to questions put to him. He admitted after much probing that Affonso had spoken to him for his failure to sign the register but only once. He denied,...