The Honourable Minister of Labour and Small and Micro Enterprise Development v Carlisle Tire and Rubber (Free Zone) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Khan, P. |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 2004 |
| Court | Industrial Relations Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Docket Number | A-11 of 2003 |
| Date | 05 March 2004 |
Industrial Court
Khan, P., Lutchmedial, M.
A-11 of 2003
Mr. Seenath Jairam, S.C. with Mr. Reginald Armour, S.C. instructed by Ms. Vanessa Gopaul for Party No. 1.
Mr. Jonathan Walker instructed by Miss Aliyah Jagessar for Party No. 2.
Employment law - Application for variation and of or dissolution of injunction — Injunction restrained the respondent company whether by its directors, officers, managers, receivers et al from taking and of or continuing to take industrial action within the meaning of the Act until after the hearing and determination of the issue or purported issue of retrenchment and of or unfair dismissal and of or dismissal with the principles of food industrial relations practice of all or any of the hourly and weekly rated workers of former workers — Ancillary orders against the respondent company — Whether a proper action was laid before the Court? — Whether Court is limited to four corners of section 65? — Whether Minister has the power to commence a trade dispute? — Finding that taking into consideration all the submissions, acting in accordance with equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, having regard to principles and practices of good industrial relations and with due consideration for the interests of the persons concerned and the community as a whole the Court found that there was a greater risk of injustice to the workers involved if the injunction were dissolved as the workers would be deprived of all possible remedies for their dismissals including but not limited to possible damages or compensation.
On September 30, 2003, on the application of the Honourable Minister of Labour and Small and Micro Enterprise Development, we granted ex parte an injunction pursuant to the powers conferred upon us by the Industrial Relations Act, Chap. 88:01 (“the Act”). The injunction inter alia restrained Carlisle Tire and Rubber (Free Zone) Limited (“The Company”) whether by its directors, officers, managers, receivers, auditors, proxies, nominees, employees, servants or agents or any of them or howsoever otherwise, including one Mr. Phillip Ragoonanan, from taking and/ or continuing to take industrial action within the meaning of the Act until after the hearing and determination of the issue or purported issue of retrenchment and/or unfair dismissal and/or dismissal in circumstances that are harsh and oppressive or not in accordance with the principles of good industrial relations practice of all or any of the said hourly and weekly rated workers/former workers.
In addition to the injunction, we also made certain ancillary orders, by way of interim relief, including one restraining The Company, whether by its directors, officers, managers, receivers, auditors, proxies, nominees, employees, servants or agents or any of them or otherwise howsoever (including the said Mr. Phillip Regoonanan) from doing the following acts or any of them, that is to say:
-
(a) removing or causing or permitting to be removed any of its assets, stock-in trade and/or receivables (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘its assets’) from or within and/or out of the jurisdiction or from transferring and/or in particular from selling or disposing of or charging, assigning, mortgaging, hiding or otherwise dealing with any of its assets or drawing from, charging, dissipating, pledging any of its assets and/or otherwise dealing with any account (deposit, current or otherwise) standing in its name or to its Order or otherwise diminishing the value of its assets (real property or personal property) money (and in particular all The Company's bank account whether held in its own name and/or jointly with others), save and except reasonable operating expenses not exceeding $25,000.00 per month, provided that if The Company requires a greater sum than $25,000.00 per month it shall obtain the full prior written consent of attorney-at-law on record for Party No. 1 and upon presentation of which The Company's bank (one only) is at liberty to permit withdrawal of the sum or sums so specified or failing agreement as aforesaid, The Company is at liberty to make an inter partes application to the Court for a sum in excess of the aforesaid $25,000.00;
-
(b) destroying, defacing, tampering with, amending, hiding, removing or transferring the books of accounts, sales, and purchase records including invoices, vouchers, bills, requisitions and receipts for all things, goods or items bought and sold and all other records, accounts, ledgers, journals, books and documents including computer records (hereinafter called “the said book of accounts”) that directly and indirectly touch upon and concern the business of The Company and in particular all hourly rated workers;
-
(c) paying and/or declaring any dividends and/or granting increases in salaries or bonuses to any employee or worker, agent, principal or manager or receiver/manager (past or present) any lump sum payment and/or directors' fees to any director or manager (past or present) of The Company, their proxies, nominees, servants or agents or otherwise howsoever or from granting any loans to any of the aforesaid persons their proxies, nominees, servants or agents and/or any other person, entity, firm or corporation unless and until the prior written consent of the attorney-at-law on record for Party No. I is first had and obtained and/or an Order in that behalf is first had and obtained by an inter partes application from or by the Court.
We also ordered further that, pursuant to Section 65. (2)-(b) of the Act, the matter/trade dispute/issue/difference of opinion as to the reasonableness or otherwise of any action taken or not taken by The Company and/or the non- payment of severance benefits whether in accordance with Section 23. (1)(a) and (b) of the Retrenchment and Severance Benefits Act, 1985 and/or Section 22 thereof between the said hourly and weekly rated workers/former workers and The Company shall be deemed to have been referred to the Court by the parties thereto.
We ordered additionally that The Company and/or any other third party served with the Order may apply to the Court at any time to vary or discharge the Order (or so much of it as affects The Company or the third party as the case may be) on condition that should The Company and/ or the said third party wish to do so it must first give at least forty eight (48) hours notice (Saturdays, Sundays and Public holidays excluded) to the Attorney at Law for Party No. 1.
The injunction granted was in respect of the allegation by the Minister that The Company had been engaging in industrial action in the form of a lockout of the workers contrary to the national interest.
The Minister's application was supported by affidavits of Emmanuel George, Selby Brathwaithe and Lance Fraser all sworn to and filed herein on September 30, 2003 together with the exhibits thereto.
Despite the provision in our Order for variation and/or discharge of the injunction, it was only on the afternoon of December 19, 2003, the last day before the Court's Christmas vacation, that The Company filed a Notice dated the same day applying to the Court for the following reliefs:
- That the injunction may be dissolved; or alternatively 2. That the Minister be required to provide an undertaking as to damages; and/or 3. That the injunction be varied and or modified by: (a) limiting the assets of The Company to which it applies; and/or (b) increasing the amount that The Company is permitted to spend per month on reasonable operating expenses from $25,000.00 to $325,000.00 plus all reasonable legal expenses. 4. That The Company be at liberty to enter a bond for the amount of the injunction as varied or otherwise, and that upon such bond being entered or other sufficient security being provided the said injunction herein shall be dissolved. 5. Such further and/or other directions and/or orders that the Court may consider just and appropriate.
The Court attempted to hear The Company's application on December 30, 2003 but due to the unavailability and continuing unavailability of counsel for the Minister, the next possible date was January 9, 2004 when we began hearing the application. The hearing was completed on January 13, 2004 when we reserved our Ruling on the various applications. We gave leave, however, to Mr. Jairam, S.C. to make certain additional submissions in writing on the recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Belize Affiance of Conservation Non - Governmental Organisations v. Department of the Environment of Belize (Practice Note) [[20031 1 W.L.R. 2839]. We also gave leave to Mr. Walker to reply in writing to Mr. Jairam's written submission. Mr. Jairam's written submission was presented to the Court on January 13, 2004 and Mr. Walker replied to it on January 14, 2004.
The Company's application was supported by two affidavits, one by Thomas Douglas and Ashmead Piralli both of which were sworn to on December 19, 2003.
We had the following documents before us on the hearing of The Company's application:
The Minister's application for the injunction dated September 30, 2003;
-
(ii) The affidavit of Emmanuel George sworn to and filed herein on September 30, 2003;
-
(Ill) The...
To continue reading
Request your trial