Oilfields Workers' Trade Union v Mcenearney (tobago) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Ramchand, P.
• Judgment Date: 06 June 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 27 of 1989
• Date: 06 June 1991

Industrial Court

Ramchand, P.;

Benjamin, M.

27 of 1989

Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

and

McEnearney (tobago) Limited

Appearances:

Mr. G. Rousseau - Labour Relations Officer for party no. 1.

Mr. P. Cezair Industrial Relations Consultant - for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal for loss of confidence — Company entrapping worker in wrongdoing — Collective agreement — Worker in breach of provision — No reason to interfere with company's decision — Dispute dismissed.

Ramchand, P.

1 On the last day of the hearing of this trade dispute, the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as “the union”) had virtually conceded that Rodney Thomas (hereinafter referred to as “the worker”) had been the victim of a successfully executed plan of the management of Mc Enearney (Tobago) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company”) to entrap him in wrong doing. And the question, which seemed to arise, concerned the propriety of such a course of conduct.

2 The worker was employed as an ‘A’ class straightener by the Company whose main business was the sale and repair of motor vehicles in Tobago. He was dismissed on November 24, 1983 because management held the view that he had “enticed a customer to take repair work from the company” in flagrant breach of a provision in the registered collective agreement. The facts are not materially in dispute. The company estimated $4,235.00 for the straightening and painting of motor car PZ-1388. The worker later arranged to do the same work for $2,600.00. The letter of dismissal given to the worker reads as follows:

24th November, 1983

Mr. Rodney Thomas

Present

Dear Mr. Thomas,

Reference is made to the discussions held on Monday 21st November, 1983 where you were shown a receipt dated 6th November, 1983 in your name for One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) representing a deposit for repairs to Vehicle Reg. No. PZ-1388. You were also shown a further receipt dated 14th November, 1983 in your name for One Thousand Six Hundred ($1,600.00) as final payment for repairs to the said Vehicle PZ-1388. You were also shown the formal Estimate of the Company dated 2nd November 1983 for repairs to the said vehicle PZ-1388 which was prepared with your assistance.

The customer has advised us that after our formal Estimate was given to him you later approached him to carry out the repairs in a private capacity away from our Repair Shop. It is our view that you deliberately enticed the customer and arranged to take away the repair work from our Repair Shop, contrary to Article “34(c)” of the Collective Agreement, effectively competing with the Company's line of business. It is our...