Oilfields Workers' Trade Union v Ramoutar Industries Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Khan, P.
• Judgment Date: 29 April 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 71 of 1990
• Date: 29 April 1991

Industrial Court

Khan, P.; Elcock, M.

71 of 1990

Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

and

Ramoutar Industries Ltd.

Appearances:

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

Mr. Andy Bhajan, attorney-at-law for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Statute — Retrenchment and Severance Benefits Act, section 3(1)(e) — Classification of persons who are not “workers” for purposes of Act — Claim for severance benefits for various workers following termination of employment — Whether workers classified as “workers” under Act — Whether workers continuously employed — Finding that workers entitled to benefit under Act — Quantum assessed by court.

Khan, P.

1 By letter dated 29th August, 1989, Ramoutar Industries Ltd. (“the Company”) terminated the services of Angela Roopnarine, George R. Edwards, Amina Rajab, Francis Braxton, Kowsil Samlal, Samdai Paul, Mailman All, Dulcie Seecharan, Taramatie Sookram, Liola Singh, and Chandra Dwarika (“the workers”). The Company's letter to the workers (so far as material) stated: “The above-named Company wishes (to) advise you that you will no longer be employed with us from 01/09/89. This is because the North Brea Janitorial contract has been awarded to another contractor.”

2 The Company paid no severance benefits to the workers and by let dated 12th September, 1989, the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union (“the Un reported the existence of a trade dispute between the Union and the Company. The Union's report alleged that (a) the Company had retrenched the workers; and (b) the Company had refused to pay the workers the accumulated severance benefits to which they were entitled in respect of their continuous and unbroken service with the Company and other predecessor employers.

3 The Company denied that it was a successor employer to any previous employer or employers of the workers or that it was liable to pay several benefits to the workers in respect of the workers' period of service wit it on the following grounds.

• (a) That the workers were engaged by the Company for/specified or fixed one year term or basis.

• (b) That under the said engagement the workers were required to perform a specific task or contract, namely, the provision of specific cleaning services within specific areas during specific periods at Trintoc, Point-a-Pierre.

• (c) That each and every one of the workers fully knew and appreciate and/ought to have known and appreciated and/or that the Company had reasonable grounds for believing that the workers knew and appreciated, the full terms, extent, conditions and duration of their said engagement or employment or contract with the Company including the terms and conditions set out in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) hereinabove.

• (d) That each and every one of the workers knew or ought to have known at the commencement of their engagement that they would not be entitled to any severance pay or other benefits from the Company at the termination of their employment.

• (e) That each and every one of the workers is not a worker within the meaning of the term “worker” under the Retrenchment and Severance Benefits Act No. 32 of 1985 and falls within the exception provided in section 3(1)(e) of the said Act.

• (f) That upon the...