Oilfields Workers' Trade Union v Automotive Components Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Khan, P.
• Judgment Date: 02 August 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 173 of 1987
• Date: 02 August 1991

Industrial Court

Khan, P.;

Benjamin, M.

173 of 1987

Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

and

Automotive Components Ltd.

Appearances:

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

Mr. Michael Jobity, attorney for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal for act of gross misconduct — Whether harsh and oppressive — Worker having 25 years unblemished service — Worker disposing of company's property without authorisation — Finding that dismissal too punitive — Damages awarded to worker.

Khan, P.

1 In this trade dispute the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”) has challenged the dismissal of Isaac Ramsey (Hereinafter referred to as “the worker”) on Monday March 16, 1987 by Automotive Components Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”).

2 The worker's services were terminated for what the company described as an act of gross misconduct in that he disposed. of company property without authorisation. The Union denied any wrongdoing or misconduct on the worker's part and accordingly urged the court to find the dismissal harsh, oppressive and contrary to good industrial relations practice.

3 The company is located at Lady Hailes Avenue, san Fernando and carries on the business of tyre and battery repairs and services. The worker was a serviceman engaged inter alia in the removal and replacement of new and worn tyres. It is not in dispute, that as part of his duties, he was involved in the removal of worn tyres from the company-owned vehicle TAT 2312 sometime in March 1987. Such worn tyres called “casings” are tagged and earmarked for recapping at the company's factory in Arima. There is, however, a serious lacuna in the company's records as to what date the casings were removed. The worker, in his evidence-in-chief, gives the 10th March as the date of removal. The company's witnesses were all uncertain as to when. Another surprising feature of this matter is the company's uncertainty as to what was lost.

4 Wayne Norton Gittens, then service Manager of the Company (hereinafter referred to as (“the Manager”) testified that he had been informed that the worker had given away two (2) of the casings taken off TAT 2312. When questioned by him, the worker admitted this. This was confirmed by the evidence of Lester Whittier, a storekeeper, who testified that the worker told him that two (2) casings had been given away by him.

5 Contradicting sworn testimony was given by company witness Knolly Bertrand, who assisted the worker in the removal of the four (4) casings from TAT 2312. He testified that the worker had given the four (4) casings...