Steel Workers' Union of Trinidad and Tobago v Iron and Steel Company of T & T et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Khan, P.,Elcock, M.
• Judgment Date: 22 July 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 100 of 1990
• Date: 22 July 1991

Industrial Court

Khan, P.;

Elcock, M.

100 of 1990

Steel Workers' Union of Trinidad and Tobago

and

Iron and Steel Co. of T &T et al

Appearances:

Mr. Verne Edwards - Consultant for party No. 1.

Mr. Carlisle Bharath - Attorney-at-Law for party No. 2.

Mr. Keith Sobion - Attorney-at-Law for party No. 3.

Statute - Retrenchment and Severance Benefits Act, section 19(4) — Definition of “successor”.

Industrial law - Retrenchment — Retrenchment of workers by first company — Claim for payment of severance benefit — Workers absorbed by second company — Whether successor company — Finding that workers not entitled to severance benefits — Finding that second company successor employer of workers.

1 PAGE 2 MISSING

2 lists of the involved workers and these lists were marked respectively A1, A2, A3, and A4. A1 contained the names and relevant particulars of 214 monthly-rated workers who had been formerly continuously employed by the first Company and whose services had been absorbed by the second Company as from 1st May, 1989. A2 contained the names and relevant particulars of 512 hourly-rated weekly paid workers who had been formerly continuously employed by the first Company and whose services had been absorbed by the second Company as from 1st May, 1989. A3 contained a list of the names of 56 workers who had been formerly employed by the first Company but whose services had been terminated by retrenchment on 30th April, 1989. The first Company had paid these 56 workers retrenchment benefits on terminating their services. A4 also contained a list of 9 workers, who continued in employment with the first Company on and after 30th April, 1989 but who were subsequently retrenched by the first Company and paid retrenchment benefits. The lists marked A1 and A2 are hereto annexed to this judgment. The Union accepted that the workers listed in the lists marked AW and A4 have been paid all severance benefits due to them as a result off” their retrenchment. It is not in dispute between the parties that the second Company is the successor of the first Company within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act. Chap. 88:01 (“the 1:.R.A.”) and the Retrenchment and Severance Benefits Act, 1985 (“R.S.B.A.”). The court determined that the second company is the successor of the first company under and in accordance with the I.R.A. on 15th February, 1981.

3 Mr. Sobion, the Attorney for the second Company submitted in limine:

1

that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the question of whether or not the second Company was the successor of the first Company in this trade dispute under the R.S.B.A. because of the existence of the determination of 15th February, 1991; and 2. that the second Company should be dismissed as a party to these proceedings since the Union I has claimed no relief against it.

4 We rejected both of these submissions.

5 With respect to Mr. Sobion's first submission, section 48(8) of the I.R.A. stipulates that for the purposes of section 47, successors or assignees of an employer shall be deemed to be parties to a registered collective agreement. Section 48(3) permits the court to determine whether a person is a successor or assignee of another:- “from all the circumstances in accordance with good conscience and the principles of good industrial relations practice…”

6 On the basis of goad industrial relations practice, the court has defined “successorship” in this way:

“Under the industrial relations principle of successorship, a new employer who carries on substantially the same operation as a previous employer, in substantially the same way with substantially the same employees, must grant those employees terms and conditions of employment no less favourable than these they previously enjoyed with credit far previous service with the former employer so that the assessment of any benefits dependent upon length of service would take into account that previous service. It is based on the fact that, such an employer has the benefit of the expertise and experience acquired by the workers' previous service, as well as the advantage of the established arrangements and relationships of a settled working environment and is thereby saved the time, trouble and considerable expense of recruiting and training a whole new work force and establishing smooth working relationships between them. It is considered unfair that a worker should have his experience and service wiped out by a transaction in which he...