Oilfields Workers' Trade Union v Ramatally Brothers General Contractors

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Beckles, P.
• Judgment Date: 26 April 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 34 of 1990
• Date: 26 April 1991

Industrial Court

Beckles, P.; Elcock, M.

34 of 1990

Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

and

Ramatally Brothers General Contractors

Appearances:

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

Mr. Elton Prescott attorney-at-law for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Alleged retrenchment of worker — Claim for severance benefits — Whether retrenchment may arise in respect of one worker only — Whether worker constructively dismissed — Finding that worker not dismissed by reason of redundancy — Worker ordered to leave company's premises — Worker denied entry — Whether irregularity of employment due to worker's membership of union — Finding that worker dismissed in circumstances contrary to principles of good industrial relations practices — Compensation awarded to worker.

Beckles, P.

1 In this dispute the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union (“the Union”) has applied to the court for an Order that Ramatally Brothers General Contractors (“the Company”) should he ordered to pay severance benefits to Ramtahal Sookoo (“the Worker”) who up to the month of February 1990 was employed by the Company as a truck driver.

2 The Union contends that the worker's employment was terminated by reason of redundancy and that he is therefore entitled as of right to be paid severance benefits. The Company on the other hand opposes the Union's application on the ground that the worker has abandoned his job and is accordingly not entitled to severance pay.

3 In accordance with section 8(5) of the Industrial Relations Act Chapter 88:01 (“the Act”) written evidence and arguments were filed in these proceedings by both parties. Having heard the oral evidence of the witnesses called by both sides, and having considered it against the back ground of these written submissions, we find that certain facts of this case are not in dispute and these we will now proceed to narrate.

4 The Union is the recognised majority Union and bargaining agent for the bargaining unit comprising the hourly rated employees of the Company of which the worker is a member.

5 The Company is an unincorporated partnership with its place of business at Fyzabad, South Trinidad, and for the past forty odd years has been engaged in the business of general transport contractors to the oil industry. It owns a variety of vehicles including tractors, trucks and pickups which it makes available to its clients completes with drivers end labourers, and at all material times it employed between 50 and 60 workers of whom 25 were drivers.

6 The Company has no fixed contracts with the oil companies which it services but operates on the basis of an ad hoc system whereby it makes its vehicles available on a daily basis for hire to its customers who may or may not require them on any particular day. When one of its customers requires a vehicle, the Company despatches the particular type of vehicle required together with its driver. A vehicle may be so required and despatched at any hour of the day and the Company is paid by the hour for the hire of its vehicles.

7 Under this system, the Company's workers have no guarantee that their services will be required on any particular day and this is stipulated by their written terms and conditions of service. However the workers are required to present themselves at the Company's yard at Fyzabad on every working day, Mondays to Fridays, before 7.00 a.m. and they are given work to do as and when the Company's vehicles are hired by its customers.

8 The precise date on which the worker was first employed by the Company is disputed but, it is certain that he worked as a truck driver with the Company from February 1982 up to 1st February 1990. The Company's establishment includes two classes of truck drivers, namely ‘Truck Driver Medium” and “Truck Driver Heavy” and the worker's classification fell under the latter category.

9 During the years 1982 to 1984 he was regularly and frequently given work to do, but starting in the year 1985, his number of work-days began to fluctuate and then to dwindle. The Company's records show the position to be as follows:

1982	- 242 days worked
1983	- 264 “
1984	- 263 “
1985	- 161 “
1986	- 181 “
1987	- 144 “
1988	- 76 “
1989	- 27 “

10 By letter dated 18th August 1988, the Union raised the issue of the worker's “non-employment” (as they put it) by the Company and requested a meeting to discuss the matter. Discussions between the parties subsequently took place, but the problem was not resolved.

11 On 1st February 1990, the worker had a discussion with Mr. Unus Ramatally, one of the Company's partners and as a result of this conversation, the worker came to the conclusion that his employment had been terminated by way of retrenchment.

12 Two witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the Union - the witness himself and one Ferdi Jones a former employee of the Company.

13 The worker testified that he was first employed by the Company as a truck driver in February 1981 and that for the first six years of his employment he regularly worked five days per week driving whatever type of vehicle he was required to drive. However after 1987, he said, although he continued to report for work at the prescribed hour on every working day, the Company began to allot him less and less work to do, even though the Company's vehicles continued to be as much in demand as before. He stated that on many occasions he had seen the “extra-heavy” trucks which he and few other workers were qualified to drive, being sent out on jobs by the Company, with some other driver at the wheel, and he alleged that the Company frequently gave work to non-unionized workers, who to his knowledge received lower wages and fewer fringe benefits than the unionized workers. He stated that he had approached the Company on several occasions about this problem and it had been made clear to him that he was being sidelined because of his membership in the Union, since non-unionized labour was less costly to the Company. He also averred that although he had been employed as a “heavy” truck driver, he had always been willing to drive any other...