Oilfield Workers Trade Union v Readymix (West Indies) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Beckles, J.,Paul, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 June 1993
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: No. 16 of 1992
• Date: 29 June 1993

Industrial Court

Beckles, J.; Paul, J.

No. 16 of 1992

Oilfield Workers Trade Union

and

Readymix (West Indies) Ltd.

Appearances:

Mr. G. Rousseau, Labour Relations Officer) for Party No. 1

Mr. Osley Francis, Industrial Relations Officer) for Party No. 2

Industrial law - Industrial relations offence — Failure to treat and enter into negotiations — Collective agreement — Alleged violation of articles — Company unilaterally serving notices of temporary layoff on five (5) workers — Finding that company acted contrary to spirit and intent of article of collective agreement — Whether violation of article necessarily an industrial relations offence — Finding that company did not intend to refuse to treat and enter into negotiations with union — Violation of article in nature of trade dispute — Industrial relations complaints dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 By letter dated 23rd June, 1992 the Oilfield workers Trade Union (the Union) made application to the Industrial Court for an order against Readymix (West Indies) Ltd. (the Company) in respect of certain alleged industrial relations offences. The Union complained that the company had violated Articles 2,4,7,10 and 27 of the existing Collective Agreement between the parties. The Union further alleged that the Company, consequent on the above had also contravened S. 40(1) of the Industrial Relations Act Ch 88:01 (the Act) itself an industrial relations offence.

2 Pursuant to the court's directives the parties filed their respective Statements of Evidence and Arguments and the matter came on for hearing before this court on January 12, 199 March 1, 1993 and March 2, 1993, when addresses were completed a judgment reserved.

3 The Union's complaint was that on 29 August, 1992 the Company unilaterally served notices of temporary layoff on five (5) of its workers. This, the Union claims was done without prior consultation with the Union as is required by Article 4 of the existing Collective Agreement between the parties. The effect of this act of the Company, said the Union, amounted to a breach of section 40(1) of the Act which enjoins an employer to treat and enter into negotiations with a recognised majority Union representing workers in a bargaining unit. The Union further contended that consequential breaches of Articles 2,7,10, and 27 followed as an inescapable concomitant of the Company's actions.

4 For the Union Messrs. Daniel, Pamponette, Assevero and Singh gave evidence. Daniel, Pamponete and Assevero all testified to receiving letters of lay-off on 29th May, 1992. Singh related that on Tuesday 26th May, 1992 he as Shop Steward had been told by the Production and Transport Manager, Mr. J. Walker, of the difficulties being experienced by the Company in respect of its #245 Excavator, the principal machine used to win material from its Melajo plant, and of the efforts being made to keep production going. Mr. Walker had however hinted that given the current situation a temporary lay-off of same workers was being considered by Management.

5 Singh said that he protested vehemently against this proposed course of action because in his view the prevailing situation was in no way attributable to any fault of the workers. He was of the firm opinion that the Company had not, exhausted other, possible alternatives.

6 He said that he, there and then, advised Walker that he should ss the matter with the workers and the Union. Walker and the Managing Director Mr. Y. Ali toured the plant on Thursday 28th and discussed inter alia plan that Walker had proposed that did not involve laying off of the workers. Walker subsequently told him that Mr. Ali had approved of the said plan. He considered the matter settled. However on Friday 29th one Jesse Kalyan, a Supervisor informed him that the agreed plan had been scrapped by Mr. Ali and that the workers should await the arrival of Mr. Walker before leaving the plant at 4.00 p.m. Walker did arrive about 4.30 p.m. and distributed letters of temporary layoff to the workers coupled with a letter to him as Shop Steward informing him of the Company's course of action. Hereunder are quoted specimens of the letter of temporary lay-off given to the affected workers and the letter given to Singh as Shop Steward:

READYMIX (WEST INDIES LIMITED

Tumpuna Road, Guanapo,

Trinidad. W.I.

P.O. Box 825, P.O.S.

Ph: 643-2429 /2430

29th May, 1992

Mr. Dennis Assevero,

C/o Readymix (W.I.) Ltd.,

MELAJO.

READYMIX (WEST INDIES LIMITED

7 Dear Mr. Assevero,

8 As you are aware, the 245 excavator is unfortunately under repair and Tracmac estimates it could take up to one month to repair.

9 Every possible effort has been made to obtain sufficient, suitable material to process to enable us to continue running the plant economically. To date, we have not been successful.

10 Accordingly, you will have to be laid off without pay for two weeks from Monday 1st June 1992, until the crane is back in use, or sufficient raw material has been stockpiled to enable us to continue. You are entitled to vacation leave, and should you wish to utilise the period against your vacation leave entitlement, you free to do so.

11 The above steps are greatly regretted but unfortunately have become necessary.

12 The Company will be communicating with you when the crane is back in operation or sufficient material is stockpiled, at the earliest possible moment.

Production Manager.

Sincerely,

John Walker,

Transport & Production Manager c.c. Mr. M. Singh,

OWTU.

READYMIX (WEST INDIES) Ltd

29 ^th May, 1992

Mr. Mahadoo Singh,

Shop Steward,

Ready Mix (W.I.) Ltd.

MELAJO

13 Dear Mr. Singh,

14 As you are aware, the 245 excavator is unfortunately under repair and Tracmac estimates it could take up to one month to repair.

15 Every possible effort has been made to obtain sufficient, suitable material to process to enable us to continue running the plant economically. To date we have not been successful.

16 Accordingly, the under mentioned workers will have to be laid off without pay for two weeks from Monday 1st June, 1992, until the are is back in use, or sufficient raw material has been stock-piled to enable us to continue. Some of them are entitled to vacation leave at the moment and should any of them wish to utilise the period against their vacation leave entitlement, they are free to do so.

Joseph Daniel

Dennis Assevero

Toy Motie

Neville Marcus

Felix Pamponetto

17 The above steps are greatly regretted but unfortunately have become necessary.

18 The Company will be communicating with the workers and yourself to ask them to return to work when the crane is back in operation or sufficient material is stockpiled, at the earliest possible moment.

Sincerely,

John Walker, Transport & Production Manager.

c.c. O.W.T.U.,

19 For the Company Mr. John Walker was the sole witness;.His testimony did not differ materially from that of Singh, except that he maintained that when he spoke to Singh about the possibility of workers being temporarily laid off Singh had said that he was not satisfied and that, he, Singh would take it further. In support of its testimony as to the gravity of the situation the Company produced a repair bill dated 22nd July, 1992 from Tracmac Engineering for $92,258.88 for work done on the 245 Excavator during and after the period of dislocation of the workers. The company maintained that it had acted correctly by informing the Shop Steward Singh of all developments leading up to the lay off which lasted but one week.

20 In its address the Union submitted that the Central Executive is the sole body with which communication with the Union must be made. Any purported notification to Singh as shop Steward was therefore to be totally disregarded.

21 Alluding to Article 4 of the Collective Agreement which was appended to the Union's Evidence and Arguments filed in this matter the Union argued that the Company had violated its provisions which made it mandatory that prior consultation with the union take place whenever the Company contemplated a reduction in its labour force for any period whatever.

22 The Union pointed to a letter of 9th June, 1992 (Appendix M to its Evidence and Arguments) as an admission by the its error which supported the above contention. Flowing from...