Oilfields Workers' Trade Union v Readymix (w I) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Aberdeen, C. |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 2001 |
| Court | Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Docket Number | ICA No. 2 of 2000 |
| Date | 06 November 2001 |
Industrial Court
Aberdeen, C.
ICA No. 2 of 2000
Mr. T. Stapleton Labour Relations Officer for Party No. 1.
Mr. E. Prescott Attorney-at-law for Party No. 2.
Industrial law - Collective agreement — Interpretation — Whether company failed to apply an article of the collective agreement.
In this matter the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union hereinafter called (“the Union”) by way of an application pursuant to the provisions of section 16(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, alleges that ReadyMix (WI) Ltd, (hereinafter called “the Company”) misinterpreted and hence failed to apply, the provisions of Article 27 of a Collective Agreement (hereinafter called the agreement), regarding voluntary resignation, on behalf of Mahadeo Singh (hereinafter called the (“worker”), when he resigned his employment on December 31st 1999. The Collective Agreement referred was a registered Collective Agreement for the period January 1st 1997 to December 31st 1999 and covered a bargaining unit comprised of all hourly, weekly and monthly rated workers employed by the Company. The agreement was entered into and signed by the parties on July 30th 1999. The worker, Mahadeo Singh was employed until December 31st 1999, (the last of the agreement), as a Maintenance Supervisor and received a monthly salary of $5,763.00. He was a member of the Bargaining Unit covered by the Collective Agreement. The OWTU was at all material times the Recognised Majority Union in respect of that bargaining unit. At the time of his resignation the worker was 43 years of age and had accumulated twenty-one (21) years of service with the Company.
The Union claimed that the worker had satisfied all the relevant requirements of Article 27(3) (c) of the agreement when he resigned and was entitled to receive one hundred percent (100%) of the prescribed Terminal Benefits. The Union further argued that at the time of the worker's resignation, there was no Pension Plan in place of which the worker was a member; that the Pension Plan only had life after January 11th 2000, when a “letter of Understanding was signed by the parties; and that there were no provisions of the agreement including Article 39, which disentitled the worker, during its currency to the Terminal Benefits contemplated by Article 27.
Article 27 of the Collective Agreement titled “Redundancy Benefits” comprised of several subsections and provides for the payment of a “Terminal Benefit payment to workers who are terminated by the Company or who resigned voluntarily in certain specified circumstances.
Article 27(2) provides for the payment of a Terminal Benefit to “a worker whose services are terminated for proper cause…” It also establishes the scale for the payment to hourly and weekly rated employees on the one hand and monthly rated employees on the other. Article 27(3) provides that:
“Terminal benefits, as above shall be payable as follows:
(a) One hundred (100%) of the Terminal Benefits to any worker whose services are terminated by the Company for any of the following reasons: -
(i) Redundancy/Retrenchment reasons
(ii) Ill health, or
(iii) Age disability after the worker has attained fifty (50) years of age.
(b) Ninety percent (90%) of the Terminal Benefits to a worker under the age of fifty (50) who, upon completion of not less than ten (10) years nor more than twenty (20) years of service, resigns voluntary having first established to the complete satisfaction of the Company that his resignation is necessary, desirable and in his own interest and is for any of the following reasons:
(i) To undergo further full time formal or technical education in a field which he is qualified to enter;
(ii) To take up bona fide permanent residence outside Trinidad and Tobago;
(iii) To enter any viable full time private commercial undertaking which he is qualified to operate;
(iv) To assume bona fide marital obligations (female worker only)
(c) One hundred percent (100%) of the Terminal Benefits to a worker whose resignation meets fully the conditions above set forth and who has completed not less than twenty (20) years of service with the Company.”
In support of its claim the Union made oral and written submissions to the court and the worker himself gave oral evidence during hearings of this matter.
The Company, for its part, contends that by virtue of Article 39 of the Collective Agreement the worker's right to be considered for Terminal Benefits within the meaning of Article 27 of the said agreement was determined and/or replaced with effect from the January 1st 1999. The Company posited that it was agreed between the Union and itself, that a Pension Plan would replace the benefits provided by the said Article 27, subject to certain administrative details being determined and agreed between the parties and affected by the Company. The Company posited further, that the administrative details were agreed by the parties, in writing, dated January 18th 2000, titled “Letter of Understanding” and signed by both parties on or about the January 20th 2000. The Company further stated that by a letter dated January 20th 2000 the worker was advised of his eligibility to receive benefits under the Pension Plan and in support of this contention made further oral and written submissions to the court and relied too on the oral evidence of Mr. Joel Edwards, its Corporative Service Manager.
Article 39 of the Collective Agreement entitled “Pension” provides as follows: -
“The Company agrees to implement the Trinidad Cement Ltd Pension Plan, on a ‘ring farce’ basis, for all hourly rated and monthly paid employees, with effect from January 1st 1999, subject to further discussions with the Union.”
The “Letter of Understanding” dated 18/1/00 was addressed to Mr. Teddy Stapleton, Labour Relation Officer of the Union and stated as follows:
“Re: Letter of Understanding –TCL Pension Plan
This letter serves to confirm the agreement between ReadyMix (WI) Ltd, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’, and the Oilfield Workers' Trade Union, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Union’ on the implementation of the TCL Pension Plan effective January 01, 1999.
1. The Company will fund 40% of the past service for all employees eligible for pension membership as per the Trust Deed and Rules of the TCL Pension Plan.
2. The Union agrees that the existing clause for Terminal Benefits – Article 27, will remain to provide a benefit specifically for those employees over the age 55 at the time of the Pension Plan implementation – 01/01/99. This clause will be removed once those employees are no longer in the company's service. The Union and Company have agreed to clarify this position in the Collective Agreement 2000 – 2002, with a view to the inclusion of a new clause that will provide Terminal Benefits for employees 55 years and over as at January 01, 1999, and in the case of Retrenchment and Redundancy.
3. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial