Oilfields Workers' Trade Union v Paramount Transport and Trading Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Ramchand, P.
• Judgment Date: 09 April 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 7 of 1989
• Date: 09 April 1991

Industrial Court

Ramchand, P.

7 of 1989

Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

and

Paramount Transport and Trading Co. Ltd.

Appearances:

Mr. P. Eugene, Labour- Relations Officer for party no. 1.

Mr. D. Frederick, Industrial Relations Consultant for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal for gross misconduct — Alleged verbal abuse and obscenities by worker — Dismissal without proper investigation — Whether dismissal wrongful — Finding that worker not justifiably dismissed — Worker having eighteen years service — Compensation awarded for wrongful dismissal.

Ramchand, P.

1 In this dispute No. 7 of 1989 the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union (hereinafter called ‘the Union’) has complained that Paramount Transport and Trading Company (hereinafter called ‘the Company’) dismissed Kenneth Ramberran (hereinafter called ‘the worker’) for gross misconduct on the Company's premises, arising out of an incident which took place there on 22nd March, 1988.

2 The worker was in a supervisory position and was responsible for ensuring that a vehicle which had broken down the day before was in a proper state of repair for work that day.

3 In his evidence the worker claimed that together with an electrician in the employ of the Company, Jahoor, the repairs to the truck involved, registration TAD-3394 had been carried out. He was in the process of obtaining a battery from the store room when he was approached by the Joint Managing Director, Ansel Lutchmansingh. In answer to certain queries raised by Mr. Lutchmansingh he explained what had taken place and what he was about to do.

4 Mr. Lutchmansingh'a version of the incident however is entirely different. He claimed that on questioning the worker, the worker stated that he had instructed a mechanic by the name of Toolasingh to effect repairs. Mr. Lutchmansingh stated that when Toolasingh was questioned, Toolasingh denied that he was given the chore of repairing the vehicle.

5 There was therefore a dispute in the respective version of the Company and the Union about what had taken place on that morning. The Company alleged that as a result of being questioned the worker became very abusive and obscene and used four letter words on the premises where the Joint Manager also resides.

6 A witness for the Company Toolasingh testified however that the Joint Manager's manner of remonstration on that day was no different from what usually took place on...