The Steel Workers' Union of Trinidad and Tobago v Central Trinidad Steel Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Khan, P.
• Judgment Date: 25 April 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 101 of 1990
• Date: 25 April 1991

Industrial Court

Khan, P.; Gaffor, M.

101 of 1990

The Steel Workers' Union of Trinidad and Tobago

and

Central Trinidad Steel Ltd.

Appearances

Mr. Verne Edwards - Labour Consultant for party no. 1

Mr. Percy Cezair - Industrial Relations Consultant for party no. 2

Industrial law - Trade dispute — Worker dismissed without full and proper investigation into alleged misconduct — Alleged participation of worker in attempted removal of materials — Finding of no evidence to connect worker with attempted removal — Dismissal harsh and oppressive — Damages awarded.

Khan, P.

1 This trade dispute illustrates the difficulty in which an employer could find itself where it fails to make a full and, proper investigation prior to dismissing a worker for misconduct. Central Trinidad Steel Limited (“the Company”) dismissed Russell Doon Doon (“the worker”) from its employment on 23rd February, 1990. The Company dismissed the worker after it had received certain information from one Balliram Meighoo.

2 According to the written Evidence and Arguments presented to the court by the Company, on 23rd February, 1990, several items including welding rods, binding wire, and sanding discs were found at the back of Dansteel's warehouse at Point Lisas. On investigation they were found to be the property of the Company. Meighoo requested to see the Company's General Manager, Chin Cheong and told Chin Cheong, that he, Meighoo, had put the had items where they/been found. Meighoo eventually made several statements to different audiences of Company employees in which he maintained his admission but stated further that he had been given the items to convey on his forklift as a favour to the worker. The Company relied on a written statement which had been taken from him by Estate Cpl. No. 6254 Eric George, in which Meighoo had given certain details of arrangements he had allegedly made with the worker concerning the items. When interviewed by the Company, the worker had denied making any such arrangements with Meighoo and he maintained his denial before the court. Apart from Meighoo's oral and written statements to the Company, the Company had no evidence about the worker's participation or involvement in the attempted removal of the materials.

3 Meighoo admitted in court that he had given oral and written statements to the Company in which he had confessed to the attempted larceny of the items but he also testified that what he had...