Oilfields Workers' Trade Union v Federation Chemicals Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Khan, C.
• Judgment Date: 07 February 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 65 of 1989
• Date: 07 February 1991

Industrial Court

Khan, C.; Pounder, M.

65 of 1989

Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

and

Federation Chemicals Limited

Appearances

Mr. Willock Pierre - Labour Relations Officer for party no. 1.

Mr. Vernon Applewhite - Attorney-at-law.

Holding for Mr. Ernest Koylass, attorney-at-law for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Trade dispute — Termination of employment — Worker accused of defrauding company of meal ticket — Worker given opportunity to offer explanation — Worker refusing to say anything — Finding of deliberate act of dishonesty — Dismissal justified.

Khan, C.

1 The issue giving rise to this trade dispute is the dismissal of Herbert Jerry (“the worker'). Federation Chemicals Limited (“the Company”) dismissed the worker from its employment on 20th May, 1588. At all material times, the worker was employed by the Company as a B Class Operator at its operating plant at Savonetta.

2 The facts material to the dismissal of the worker may be' shortly stated as follows:

3 On 3rd March, 1988, another employee of the Company, Jaggernauth Soogrim, reported to the Company that he had lost an overtime meal voucher, which entitled him to a meal at the Company's expense at the Company's canteen up to the value of $7.00. Consequent upon the loss of the said voucher, the Company issued Soogrim with another overtime meal voucher. On 13th May, 1988 the Company discovered that the voucher which was lost by Soogrim had been tendered in the Company's canteen by the worker and that the worker had signed the back of the voucher and had obtained goods from the Company's canteen valued at $7.00. The voucher had been so used by the worker at the Company's canteen on 16th March, 1988. When asked for an explanation, the worker presented a typed letter to the Company, the text of which stated: “Concerning the matter under discussion. I have the right to remain silent. Anything I say can be used against me in a Court of Law. I have the right to Legal Counsel.”

4 The Company gave him a further opportunity to offer an explanation concerning the appearance of his signature on the back of the voucher. The worker then told the Company he could not remember ‘the incident’ and he also gave the Company typewritten document in which he made no admission concerning the use of the voucher. The Company verified through the Trinidad and Tobago Forensic Science Centre that the signature “Herbert Jerry on the buck of the voucher was the worker's signature. In the event, the Company dismissed him from its employment.

5 In its written Evidence and Arguments presented to the court, the Union stated inter alia:

“…The worker never intended to defraud the Company of a meal ticket …It is an accepted, practice for workers to take other worker's Meal Tickets to the canteen and collect their meals for them. The worker has never denied the signature on the Meal Ticket in question to be his own. However, he told the Company that he could not recall signing...