Transport and Industrial Workers Union v Consolidated Appliances Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Khan, M.
• Judgment Date: 18 March 1991
• Docket Number: 9 of 1986
• Date: 18 March 1991

Transport and Industrial Workers Union

and

Consolidated Appliances Ltd.

Khan, M.

9 of 1986

Industrial Court

Industrial law - Statute — Industrial Relations Act, section 16(2) — Application for interpretation of provisions of registered collective agreement.

Industrial law - Collective agreement — Interpretation — Company having large quantity of unsold stock — Company introducing reduced work week — Temporary lay off of workers — Temporary lay off exceeding normal period of three months — Whether justified — Ordered that company pay sums on account of wages lost.

Appearances

Mr. Albert Aberdeen - President for party no. 1.

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

Khan, M.

1 His Honour Mr. Merman Mieres and I heard this application. His Honour Mr. Mieres retired from the court at the end of, January 1990 and it is my duty to determine this application in accordance with the provisions of section 7(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, Chap. 88:01 (“the Act”). I now, therefore, deliver this judgment in accordance with the requirements of the said section 7(5). I sincerely apologise to the parties for the late delivery of this judgment.

2 The application before the court was made by the Transport and Industrial Workers' Union (“the Union”) pursuant to section 16(2) of the Act for interpretation of certain provisions of a registered collective agreement between the Union and Consolidated Appliances Limited (“the company”).

3 There is no dispute between the parties that the Union is the recognised majority union for a bargaining unit comprised of hourly rated workers employed by the Company and that the Union and the Company were parties to a duly registered collective agreement dated 24th October, 1986 (“the collective agreement”) which was binding on the parties for a period of three years beginning 1st January, 1984 and ending on 31st December, 1986. At the time when the Union's application was made to the court, therefore, the collective agreement was a subsisting collective agreement. It was also not in dispute between the parties that the question or difference for the court's determination under section 16(2) relates to the temporary lay off of workers in the bargaining unit by the Company as a result of the Company's introduction of a shortened or reduced work week in the period 1st May, 1985 to 31st October, 1985.

4 The collective agreement stipulated (so far material):–

“ARTICLE 3 -HOURS OF WORK

Section 1: The established work week for all workers shall be (8)-hours per day, Monday to Friday, from 7.00 am to 3.45pm except for Engineering workers whose hours shall be 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. to 3.45 p.m. making a total aggregate of forty (40) hours per week.

“ARTICLE 36 - TEMPORARY LAY-OFF

SECTION 1:- In the event that conditions develop within the Company which may warrant a reduction of the work force by way of a temporary layoff, the Company before taking any decision will discuss the matter with the Union.

SECTION 2:- Notwithstanding section 1 and in the event that the following conditions develop in the Factory i.e. breakdowns, electrical outages, shortage of gas, floods, fire/s, workers, shall be guaranteed wages as follows:

Daylight workers: Up to the luncheon interval

After Lunch: For the entire day

For more than 2 days, a lay-off may be instituted.

5 Article 36 is of course, very clumsily worded and is ambiguous. It is the duty of the court nevertheless to endeavour to make some sense of it. Firstly, it appears from Article 36 that it is a condition precedent to any temporary lay-off of workers, in the event conditions warranting such temporary lay-off arise, that the Company must discuss the matter with the Union before laying off the workers. Secondly, in the event of breakdowns, electrical outages, shortage of gas, flood or fire, workers shall be guaranteed wages on the basis stated in section 2 of Article 36. Thirdly in the event that such conditions (i.e. the specific conditions enumerated in section 2) continue for more than 2 continuous days, then the Company may temporarily lay-off workers. In my opinion this is the only sensible interpretation which can be placed on Article 36.

6 The facts material to this application may be summarised thus:

By letter dated 6th December, 1984, the Company invited the Union's Branch executive to discuss a proposal for the closure of the company's plant during the first quarter of the year 1985. At that meeting, the Company's Managing Director, Mr. R.C. Clarke, informed the Branch officials that he had called the meeting to inform the Branch executive of the Union that there was an element of uncertainty concerning the re-opening of the company's plant because of the large quantity of products that were still in the warehouse up to that time. This meeting was held on 10th December, 1984.

The company also met with representatives of the Central Executive of the...