Oilfields Workers' Trade Union v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Ponder, M. |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 2001 |
| Court | Industrial Relations Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Docket Number | Trade Dispute No. 152 of 1999 |
| Date | 20 November 2001 |
Industrial Court
Elcock, C.; Pounder, M.
Trade Dispute No. 152 of 1999
Mr. L. Bhajan, Labour Relations Officer for Union.
Mrs. R. Maraj-Adharsingh, Attorney-at-Law.
Mr. V. Kokaram, Attorney-at-Law for Company.
Industrial law - Collective agreement — Interpretation — Whether worker was denied training and assessment pursuant to the collective agreement.
In this dispute between the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union (the Union) and the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (the Company), the Union contends that Angela Peters (the Worker) has been wrongly classified and also that she has not received equitable treatment by the Company.
The Union, the recognized majority union representing monthly paid employees of the Company, reported the dispute to the Minister for Labour on December 1998 and the Minister referred the matter to the court on 18th August 1999 in pursuance of Section 59(1) of the Industrial Relations Act Chapter 88:01 “the Act”
The parties were directed by the court to deliver Evidence and Arguments in writing on which each party intended to rely, with which they duly complied. During the hearings the Company was directed by the court to submit supplemental Evidence and Arguments in response to the Union's Evidence and Arguments which the Company delivered in two parts on the 19th April and 18th May 2000 respectively.
The Union in its Evidence and Arguments specified two areas in which it contended that the Worker was not given, equitable treatment by the Company. These were:
-
(1) that the Worker was not given the opportunity to obtain training as other employees
-
(2) that the Worker was denied assessment for the past three (3) years contrary to Article 7 of the Collective Agreement
Oral testimony was given on behalf of the Union by the Worker and on behalf of the Company by Leroy Fermin, Administrator 1 Medical Services.
The evidence adduced has disclosed that the Worker is employed as Senior Purchasing Assistant in the Medical Department of the Company. The Worker was first appointed on 10 th January, 1972 as a stenographer and in 1993 held the position of Clerk Special Grade 3 in the Monthly Paid Junior Staff Bargaining Union. The Worker acted in the post of Purchasing Assistant (Junior Staff Grade) in the Medical Department from June 1993 to November 1994 and was confirmed in that position with effect from 1st January, 1995.
The Worker had expressed her dissatisfaction with the classification of the post of Purchasing Assistant while she was acting in that position and the Manpower Planning and Organisation Systems Department of the Company conducted a job evaluation of the post and recommended that it be reclassified as Senior Purchasing Assistant (Senior Staff, Grade 3). The recommendation was approved and took effect from 1st June, 1995.
The Worker in her oral testimony attested that since assuming the duties of Senior Purchasing Assistant she had taken on additional responsibilities, inter alia, putting proper procedures in place, instituting control systems, opening lines of communication with suppliers, and meeting with them on a regular basis. The Worker further testified that she became aware sometime in 1999 on obtaining the job description of Assistant Buyer (Senior Staff, Grade 6) that the duties she had been performing were identical with those of Assistant Buyer.
The Union tendered through the Worker the job description of Assistant Buyer which was marked ‘API’. The Worker testified that the job summary and the “key duties” specified therein are exactly the same as those she performs. In addition, she added, she fulfilled all the requirements of the job in a most exemplary manner.
Attorney for the Company conducted an exhaustive cross-examination of the Worker on the job description of Assistant Buyer in the course of which the worker acknowledged that she did not have the financial authority of an Assistant Buyer who had the authority to place a direct order on a Supplier for supplies up to $10,000. The Worker also admitted that she would need the approval of the Chief Medical Officer to place a purchase order directly on a Supplier.
The worker denied that her workload as a Senior Purchasing Assistant had been significantly reduced with the introduction of computerization. She also denied that the improvements she testified to having introduced during her tenure of office were among the “key duties” set out in the job description of her position as a Senior Purchasing Assistant.
Fermin testified that he had been in the employment of the Company for twenty-seven years and held the position of Administrator, Medical Services for sixteen years. He further testified that because of unavoidable overlapping of functions the worker could have performed some of the functions of Assistant Buyer which he identified in ‘API’ but that she did not at any time have financial authority. Fermin asserted that the only persons in the Medical Department with financial authority were the Medical Superintendent, the Chief Pharmacist and the Administrator) Medical Services. Fermin also confirmed that the Worker did not have supervisory responsibility.
Fermin indicated that the Worker did not perform the following “key duties” listed in the job description of Assistant Buyer:
“(1) Reviews/approves the work of supervised staff.
(2) Monitors the attendance and checks/approves relevant documents for supervised employees
(3) Assesses the performance of supervised staff in accordance with approved company policy.
(4) Performs such other supervisory functions as recommended relative to reward or discipline of personnel for good or improper work performance or conduct; representing the company at the appropriate stage of the grievance procedure and ensuring adherence to Company's Safety Rules and Regulations.”
Another key duty he testified the Assistant Buyer is required to perform that does not apply to the Senior Purchasing Assistant is to maintain “approved suppliers list to improve availability of supplies”. Fermin explained that the Medical Department is supplied by the Materials Department with a list of registered suppliers and does not therefore approve the list of suppliers.
We defer our consideration of this issue for later on in our judgment and now turn to the two other complaints made by the Union.
The Union contends that the Worker was, discriminated...
To continue reading
Request your trial