Oilfields Workers Trade Union v Hydro Agri Trinidad Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Beckles, J.,Thompson-Boddie, J.
• Judgment Date: 17 February 1993
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: No. 188 of 1988
• Date: 17 February 1993

Industrial Court

Beckles, J.; Thompson-Boddie, J.

No. 188 of 1988

Oilfields Workers Trade Union

and

Hydro Agri Trinidad Ltd.

Sylvan Wilson Labour Relations Officer for Party No.1

Errol Koylass attorney-at-law for party No.2

Industrial law - Collective agreement — Interpretation of wages clause — Non payment of wages to various workers — Successor company — Workers attending hearings of trade dispute as part of union's team — Failure of company to pay workers — Memorandum of agreement — Finding that payment for attendance at Industrial Court within discretion of company — Union's claim dismissed.

Industrial law - Statute — Industrial Relations Act — Section 59(2) — Application for determination of trade dispute.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 By letter dated 7, 1988 the Oilfields Workers Trade Union (The Union) in accordance with section 59(2) of the Industrial Relations Act Ch. 88:01 made application to the Industrial Court (The Court) for the determination of a trade dispute between the Union and Federation Chemicals Ltd. as outlined in the Minister's Certificate of unresolved dispute which accompanied the above letter of application.

2 The dispute centred around the non payment of wages to certain workers who had attended hearings of a trade dispute at the Industrial Court on divers dates between February and April, 1987 as part of the Union's team.

3 The parties were summoned for directions on 29 ^th May 1992 and directed to file their respective statements of Evidence and Arguments by the 31st July, 1992.

4 The Union, Party No. 1, did not comply with the above directions and was granted an extension to the 15th October, 1992 to file its Evidence and Arguments.

5 In its Statement of Evidence and Arguments filed on 14th October, 1992 the union adverted to the fact that Hydro Agri Trinidad Ltd. (the Company) had succeeded Federation Chemicals Ltd. and by virtue of that succession was now the Company with which its dispute was being contested. The Company for its part agreed that this was indeed the case, as reflected in its Statement of Evidence and Arguments filed on July 31, 1992 in this Court.

6 The matter, as referred to, eventually came on for hearing on 14th January, 1993 before this Court and save for a few minor amendments as to dates and the reduction of the number of workers on whose behalf it was making claims for payment from six to four. The Union's case remained that four persons, namely Sylvan Wilson, Ramdeo Boodram, Eric Sylvester and Anthony Gopaul (the Workers) were entitled to be paid for time spent in attendance of hearings of a trade dispute at the Industrial Court on 27 February, 1987, 5 March, 1987, 20 March, 1987, 13 April, 1987 as part of the Union's team.

7 The Union alleged that the Company by its failure to pay the said workers had violated the existing Collective Agreement. It averred that the Company had hitherto paid workers in similar circumstances under the provisions of the said Collective Agreement.

8 The company strenuously denied ever having paid for attendance at the Industrial Court in accordance with any Collective Agreement and maintained that in any event even if such payment could be shown to have been made, it was purely and solely at the Company's discretion. It also denied statements attributed to it contained in the Minister's Certificate of unresolved dispute that it conceded that such payments had been previously made, albeit at the Company's discretion.

9 The court did not find it necessary to make a finding on this point but agreed with the union's observation that the alleged misstatement though known to the Company since August 1988, had until 3 July, 1992 gone unchallenged by the Company. The points in issue were succinctly highlighted in the respective Evidence and Arguments of the parties and made further oral evidence unnecessary, however addresses in support of the conflicting contentions were ably presented by their representatives.

10 The sole issue in our view was whether on a proper interpretation of the Collective Agreement. Article 5, Clause 11, an obligation to pay for the attendance of workers at hearings at the Industrial Court devolved upon the Company.

11 The said clause reads thus:

“A maximum of four (4) workers required to take part in general negotiations between the Company and the Union shall be granted time-off with full pay for the days they attend negotiations, where such attendance is on days that they normally would have worked. On the same basis the Union is privileged to have one (1) additional worker in attendance on occasion if such worker is required to clarify a specific item being discussed.”

1...