Oilfield Workers Trade Union v Trinidad and Tobago National Petroleum Marketing Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Beckles, C.
• Judgment Date: 04 December 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 93 of 1990
• Date: 04 December 1991

Industrial Court

Beckles, C.;

Pounder, M.

93 of 1990

Oilfield Workers Trade Union

and

Trinidad and Tobago National Petroleum Marketing Company Ltd.

Appearances

Paul Eugene - Labour Relations Officer for party no. 1.

Reginald Armour - Attorney-at-law for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal for loss of confidence — Whether dismissal harsh and oppressive — Claim for reinstatement — Worker found moving company's property from compound without authority.

Beckles, C.

1 The instant dispute revolves around the dismissal of George Kowlessar (the Worker,) from the employ of the Trinidad and Tobago National Petroleum Marketing Co. Ltd. (the Company) by letter dated 27th November, 1989. The said letter of dismissal cited loss of confidence in the worker as the reason for termination. The Oil Field Workers Trade Union (the Union) which is the recognised majority union representative of the workers in the Bargaining Unit to which the worker belongs challenges the said dismissal as being harsh, oppressive and not conducive to proper industrial relations and seeks the reinstatement of the worker without loss of pay, status or any other benefit and any other relief that the justice of the case may require.

2 The Company for its part maintains that its dismissal of the worker was neither harsh nor oppressive and was consistent with good industrial relations principles and practices. It asked the court therefore to dismiss the Union's claim.

3 The Company was asked by the court to lead oral evidence first in addition to its voluminous written evidence and arguments and amendments thereto. Tom this end three witnesses testified for the Company viz. Estate Cpl. Flores, Mr. O. Lovell Aviation Department Superintendent and Mr. G. Redwoods Snr, Eng. Maintenance.

4 The case for the Company in essence was that on October 139 1989 at about 4.00 p.m. the worker was seated as a passenger in a Tank Wagon proceeding out of the compound at Piarco driven by one Enoch Phillip. The vehicle was stopped at the exit gate of the Compound for a routine check. An aeroshell container a quart of oil was found in the glove compartment of the said Tankwagon. Both occupants denied any knowledge of the said container but eventually the worker admitted that it was his property. There was no customary authorisation in the form of a pass fox the removal of the said container from the Company's compound. The vehicle driven by Philip was allowed to leave, but the worker was detained along with the container of oil. Airfield Supt. Lovell was summoned and the workers were questioned by him. The worker indicated that he had rotten the oil from an old BWIA drum which had come into the compound. He termed the oil to be waste oil to be discarded and thus of no commercial value. He was taken back to the place whore he claimed to have taken the oil from and pointed out a dispenser, from which the oil originating in the BWIA drum had come. A visual comparison, carried out on the spot, of the oil from the dispenser and that in the aeroshell container found in the vehicle and acknowledged by the worker to be his, showed the two oils to be different. The offending container of oil was sent by the Company to its Sea Lots office for testing at its laboratory the same day, October 13th 1989.

5 On Monday 16th October, 1889 samples were taken at Piarco from the dispenser said by the worker to contain oil drained from a BWIA drum, on the Company's compound, and from a utility drum of oil referred to as ‘own use’ oil used by the Company for servicing its equipment. These were forwarded to Sealots for analysis. There was appended to the Company's supplementary written statement of Evidence and Arguments filed on March 1st, 1991 a Lab report showing the results of the tests carried out on the three samples adverted to above as Appendix A. 1.

6 The said report is reproduced hereunder:

TO Assistant Manager - Safety and Security

FROM Laboratory,

DATE 1989 October, 16

SUBJECT

REPORT ON SAMPLES PROM NP PIARCO

INSTALLATION SENT FOR TESTING BY SECURITY DEPARTMENT

Three (3) samples were delivered to the laboratory on October 16th 1989.

Exhibit ‘A’ which was in a aeroshell 100 1 litre container was tested and found to be. NP Super Duty S3 40.

Exhibit ‘B’ which was in a soft drink bottle labelled Diesel Oil 5-3 was also found to ‘be NP’ Super Duty S3 40.

Exhibit ‘C’ which was in another soft drink bottle labelled “From the container with the oil from B.W.I.A.” was found to be NP Gear Oil HD 90.

7 On Tuesday 17th, October, 1989 an enquiry was held by the Company into the incident of the previous Friday. The worker who was by then on suspension was present as was a Union Shop Steward requested by him. A panel of four persons comprised the Company's team. After hearing the worker's explanation of the presence of oil in his possessions the panel submitted a report of its findings to Management, which was introduced into evidence as part of the Company's statement of evidence and arguments as Appendix C1 and formally put into evidence through Mr. G. Redwood, as GR 1.

“GR 1

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO NATIONAL PETROLEUM MARKETING COMPANY LIMITED

FILENOTE

INTERVIEW OF G. KOWLESSAR ON OCTOBER 17, 1989

Present. Chief Engineer - Equipment & Transport Maintenance Piarco Airfield Superintendent Assistant Manager - Industrial Relations Industrial Relations Assistant

Mr. Marcelle Johnson, Shop Steward, was present at Mr. Kowlessar's request.

The Panel referred Mr. Kowlessar to an incident at about 3:20 p.m. on Friday 13th October, 1989, at the Piarco Depot. The Panel indicated that it had received six reports on this matter from Mr. O. Lovell Piarco Airfield Superintendent, four Estate Constables who had been present and Tank Wagon Driver Phillips. On the basis of these reports, Mrs. Kowlessar was asked to give a response to the following:

• 1. At approximately 3:20 p.m. on Friday 13th October, 1989, he was travelling in the front passenger seat of tractor TAD 7697 and at the checkpoint gate, when the vehicle was subject to a routine search by NPMC Security, a bottle of oil was found in a white plastic bag in the glove compartment.

• 2. When asked for explanations on the spot, he initially denied that he knew anything about the oil. Shortly afterwards he had indicated to Officer Francis that he be “given a chance”. After further questioning by Corporal, Flores, he admitted that the oil was his and claimed that it was old oil from a container. He also indicated that he did not have a pass for the oil.

• 3. He was then given permission by Mr. Lovell to leave with a vehicle and go to the house of Michael Joseph to collect the keys for the Maintenance shed. On his return he, Mr. Lovell and the four Security Officers went into the Maintenance shed and he indicated which container he had removed the oil from and a sample was drawn from that container and a visual comparison revealed that they were different oils.

• 4. Laboratory testy were done with indicated that the oil in the plastic container which was found in the glove compartment of the tractor was not the same oil that had been drawn from the Gear Oil dispenser which Mr. Kowlessar had, indicated on Friday 13th, was the source of the oil.

Kowlessar stated, “They had a quart of oil when was drained from a B.W.I.A. drum. This was drained almost three weeks before Friday 13th. I had done the draining in the presence of Shaid Mohammed, the Foreman, and Kanta Maharaj, the Acting Foreman, and this had been placed in an empty gallon pail that stayed in our premises in the Maintenance Section for over three weeks. When a drum is drained the contents are usually discarded and this is not Company's property,

“I was in the front seat of the cab and the vehicle was stopped and searched by Security. He asked me if I had any knowledge of the oil. I said yes because the fact remains I could have easily walked out and left the oil there, I claimed the oil seeing that it was not NP property and told the Corporal that it was a draining from a BWIA drum. It was Corporal Flores I was talking to.”

“He asked me, ‘who give you permission?’ I said seeing it was not NP's property, I walked out with it. We had not circular stating that non0company product should have a pass. He then spoke to Flores and asked me where I got the oil. I told him it was a draining from BWIA drum. Lovell said, “What Container?” I went to get the keys from Michael Joseph and came back and in the presence of Lovell and all the Security Officers, opened the shed and showed them the plastic container on the floor where the oil was. I said, “That is the container the oil was in,” I never mentioned anything about another bouser. Samples were taken from the bouser that I never mentioned and from the pail for comparison.”

“After a comparison was done all the Security Officers saw a difference in the oils and the Corporal took possession of ‘the oil’ and put it into his vehicle.”

The Assistant Manager - Industrial Relations asked, “Why was there a difference in the oil.” and put into his vehicle.

The Assistant Manager - Industrial Relations asked, “Why was there a difference in ‘the oil’.

Kowlessar responded, “I don't know.”

The Chief Engineer - Equipment and Transport Maintenance asked, “On Friday 13th did you put oil in any of the Company Units?”

Kowlessar responded, “No, not to the best of my knowledge. That was the job of the Serviceman to check the oil.”

Lovell stated, “When I reached the gate, I told Kowlessar in the presence of the guard, that the established practice was that any item leaving Piarco, whatever it was, even if it was an old hose must have a pass authorised by the Airfield Superintendent. Kowlessar told me that he did not see it was necessary as he knew it was old oil and it did not need a pass. At that stage we decided to go to the Maintenance shed and to get

Kowlessar to identify where...