Transport and Industrial Workers' Union v Coconut Growers' Association

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Beckles, C.
• Judgment Date: 25 June 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 146 OF 1990
• Date: 25 June 1991

Industrial Court

Beckles, C.;

Benjamin, M.

146 OF 1990

Transport and Industrial Workers' Union

and

Coconut Growers' Association

Appearances:

Mr. D. Samuel, Grievance Officer for party no. 1.

Mr. F. Fox, Industrial Relations Consultant for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Disciplinary action — Worker suspended for five days — Worker inattentive on job — Whether proper investigation or no investigation before suspension — Collective agreement — Provision for disciplinary action — Suspension not harsh and oppressive — Dispute dismissed.

Beckles, C.

1 Finbar Belle (hereinafter referred to as “the worker”) was suspended on 29th August 1989 by his employers, Coconut Growers' Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”). The Company manufactures soaps and detergents at its factory on Eastern Main Road, Laventille. The worker was operating a laundry soap pressing machine on the 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. shift on 28th August, 1989 when he fell afoul of the Company's production manager. The worker's five day suspension was taken up by the recognised majority union for the bargaining unit to which the worker belonged. The Transport and Industrial Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”) unsuccessfully pursued the matter through its various stages leading up to its hearing in this Honourable Court.

2 The Company's case as supported by the evidence of its production manager, David Dalbarry (hereinafter referred to as “the manager”), was that on a routine visit to the factory floor, he saw the worker seated at a table some distance away from the control panel of the pressing machine speaking to a female employee, and playing with her right hand. The result of this was that the female, a packer, was packing soap with the other hand. The operation, properly done, required that the operator be at the control penal and that soap going along a conveyor belt be packed. If the soap was defective, then the machine would be turned off and corrective steps taken. The worker had failed to come to the control panel although the manager said he stood there approximately two (2) minutes. When he finally got the worker's attention, he advised him where he should be positioned and that what he was doing was wrong. The worker paid him little heed and returned to his former position. Called again, the worker questioned whether the company had issued directives against speaking and intimated to the manager that he should raise any problem he had with his (the worker's) direct supervisor, Jerome John. The manager said he had reported the worker's behaviour to the Industrial Relations Department, recommending a five-day suspension.

3 The worker's evidence was that it was drawn to his attention that the soaps were not being properly stamped. In order to effect correction, he had moved away from the controls. He admitted speaking to the female worker but this came about while in the process of correction. The manager had entered the department and did, in fact, tell him he was not supposed to talk while on the job. He accepted that he had advised the manager that in future he should speak to his direct...