Transport and Industrial Workers' Union v Secondary Schools Maintenance Training and Security Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Valere, J.
• Judgment Date: 15 June 1993
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: No. 229 of 1987
• Date: 15 June 1993

Industrial Court

Valere, J.; Thompson-Boddie, J.

No. 229 of 1987

Transport and Industrial Workers' Union

and

Secondary Schools Maintenance Training and Security Company Ltd.

Mr. D. Samuel Industrial Relations Officer for Party No. 1

Mr. E. Thompson attorney-at-law for Party No.2

Industrial law - Contract of service — Terms and conditions of employment — Dispute concerning refusal to promote worker — Collective agreement — Alleged breach of article — Worker employed as Maintenance Technician I — Worker performing duties as Maintenance Technician II — After seven and one half (7 ¹/₂) months appointment terminated — Worker not receiving acting allowance while performing as Maintenance Technician II — Worker pressing claim for acting allowance and promotion to Maintenance Technician II — Worker paid acting allowance — Worker not promoted — Collective agreement — Provision that worker upon completion of three (3) months acting in higher category to be permanently appointed to post — Finding that worker entitled to be promoted — Various orders in favour of worker.

Valere, J.

1 This dispute brought by the Transport and Industrial Worker's Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”) against the Secondary Schools Maintenance Training and Security Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”)

2 The dispute was referred to the court by the Minister of Labour. In his letter of referral the Minister describes the dispute as concerning the refusal of the employer that is the Company “to promote Herlyn Gulston” whom we shall hereinafter refer to as the worker, a Maintenance technician I, “to the position of Maintenance technician”.

3 It also says that the Union submitted that the worker was denied a promotional opportunity contrary to the provisions of Article 17(b) and (c) of the subsisting Collective Agreement.

4 At directions, the parties were directed by the President of the Court to submit written evidence and arguments in support of their respective positions. This was duly complied with. In addition, each party was allowed to present oral evidence in further support of their respective positions.

5 The Union, for its part, called the aggrieved worker as its sole witness, and the Company, for its part, called one Martin Keller, on its behalf, to give evidence.

6 The facts in this dispute are not really so controversial at all. They are fairly simple and straightforward. The worker was employed as a Maintenance Technician 1, with the Company, and she was stationed at Tranquillity Government Second School. Some time in 1985, she applied for her vacation leave and asked that the leave be granted from September 2, 1985 to November 27, 1985. This leave application was duly approved on September 17, 1985 by one Mahadeo who was the immediate supervisor of the worker. However, on November 27, 1985 this leave which had been approved was postponed and the reason for the postponed is stated in a memorandum dated November 27, 1985. I shall read the reason for the postponement. It reads as follows:

“Please be informed that Miss H. Gulston's vacation leave has been postponed to a later date in 1985. This had to be done due to the short staff and no Maintenance Technician 11 at the facility. She is presently doing the duties of the Maintenance Technician 11.

Thanks,

K. Mahadeo.”

7 So that it is clear, from this memorandum, that there was a ‘short staff position’ of Maintenance Technician 11, and that the worker was at that time performing the duties of Maintenance Technician 11 at the facility. She continued to perform those duties and not unnaturally, she enquired, some time on, as to the payment of the acting allowance that she was entitled to while she was performing the duties of Maintenance Technician 11.

8 She made several enquiries, but to no avail, in that she was not paid the acting allowance to which she was entitled. Sometime later...