Oilfield Workers Trade Union v Trinidad and Tobago Methanol Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Beckles, C.
• Judgment Date: 26 February 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 16 of 1990
• Date: 26 February 1991

Industrial Court

Beckles, C.; Elcock, M.

16 of 1990

Oilfield Workers Trade Union

and

Trinidad and Tobago Methanol Company Ltd.

Appearances:

Mr. D. Mendes, attorney-at-law for party no.1.

Mr. A. Jessamy attorney-at-law for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Contract of service — Termination — Dismissal of two workers for unauthorised possession of company's property and attempting to subvert disciplinary procedure — Whether dismissal harsh and oppressive — Standard of proof — Finding that company acted reasonably — Dispute dismissed.

Beckles, C.

1 This dispute centres around the dismissal of Andrew Surujbally, a Driver/Equipment Operator and Nazeem Khan, a Loader (“the Workers”) from the employ of the Trinidad and Tobago Methanol Company Limited (“the Company”) on 20th December, 1988. According to the Company their dismissal was based on the two following grounds:

• (a) Unauthorised possession of Company property to wit, a bale (48 rolls) of toilet paper and two (2) new pieces of rubber mats; and

• (b) Attempting to subvert the Company's disciplinary procedure by trying to influence two of its security officers (Estate Constables Kanhai and Alves) to drop the charges against them arising from the said unauthorised possession.

2 The Oilfield Workers Trade Union (The Union), being a party to this dispute pursuant to the provisions of section 51(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act Ch 88:01 (‘the Act’) challenges their dismissal on the grounds that it was harsh, oppressive and contrary to the principles of good industrial relations practices.

3 The workers were both employed in the Stores Department of the Company from its inception in the month of March in 1988, both having also worked with the Company's predecessor, the National Energy Corporation.

4 The facts are that on the morning of the 14th December, 1988 the workers were detailed by the Company to collect a shipment of chemicals at Piarco, and shortly after 7.44 a.m. Surujbally accompanied by Khan drove a company vehicle TAE 2087 to the main gate of the Company's compound at Pt. Lisas. There the vehicle was routinely searched by Estate Constable Harribance Kanhai who found concealed in the tool box of the vehicle the toilet paper and rubber mats referred to above. Estate Constable Kanhai promptly seized the items, but allowed the vehicle to proceed on its mission.

5 Upon their return to the Company's compound later that day, the workers were briefly questioned by their immediate supervisor, Mr. Winston Constable, Stores Supervisor, and at his request each worker submitted to him a written report of the morning's incident at the gate. The workers reports were almost identical. Shortly thereafter the Company held an internal inquiry into the incident, and based on the findings thereof, the workers were dismissed on the grounds set out above.

6 The Company called five witnesses in support of its case, Estate Constables H. Kanhai and C. Alves, Stores Supervisor Winston Constable and Illingsworth White, a Driver/Equipment Operator and Aldwyn Daniel, Manager Administration.

7 Estate Constable Kanhai testified that after he had found the toilet paper and mats in the vehicle's tool box Surujbally had pleaded with him not to report the matter to the Company. Sometime later that morning (approximately 9.00 o'clock) Surujbally had telephoned the Company to speak to him and had again asked him to drop the matter. One Gaston Lamont, a co-worker of Khan's in the Stores Department had chanced to be within earshot while this conversation was taking place and having previously heard of the earlier incident which was by then widely known within the Company had asked to speak to Surujbally. Kanhai handed the phone to Lamont who then said: “Where Khan? I want to talk to Khan”, then after a pause Lamont had said presumably to Khan “Why you curse the guard? You cause everything.” E.C. Kanhai testified categorically and specifically to the truth of this sequence of events and the details thereof as indicated.

8 Estate Constable Caffeil Alves supported the assertions of Estate Constable Kanhai in respect of the alleged pleading by Surujbally with Kanhai that he should let the matter of the unauthorised possession of Company property proceed no further than the security booth. He testified that he himself had been importuned by Surujbally to use his influence to persuade Estate Constable Kanhai to take no further action on the matter in question.

9 Winston Constable, Stores Supervisor asserted in the course of his testimony that the duties of Surujbally as a vehicle driver included a daily check of the vehicles entrusted to his care, and he adduced (exhibit “WC”,) a detailed official check list of items to be checked. This list included oil and gas levels, tyres and the tool box among the items to be checked. Constable disclosed that subsequent checks done by him showed the items to be identical with property held in the Company's Stores, and that these particular items were short.

10 Aldwyn Daniel, Manager Administration testified that at the inquiry held by the Company Khan...