Trinidad and Tobago Oil Company Ltd v Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Beckles, V.P.
• Judgment Date: 21 November 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: 125 of 1990
• Date: 21 November 1991

Industrial Court

Beckles, V.P.

125 of 1990

Trinidad and Tobago Oil Company Ltd.

and

Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

Appearances:

Mr. Berkley Labour Relations Officer for party no. 1.

Mr. Henly Wooding attorney-at-law for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Non-promotion of worker — Worker assigned as mechanic — Worker acting as charge hand — Collective agreement — Right of management to designate worker as charge hand — Whether worker qualifying for payment of charge hand bonus — Right of management not exercised — Worker not entitled to payment — Claim dismissed.

Beckles, V.P.

1 The above Trade Dispute between the Oilfield Workers' Trade Union (the Union) and Trinidad and Tobago Oil Co. Ltd. (“the Company”) centres around the complaint by the Union over the non-promotion of Glenroy Vincent (“the worker”) from the position of “A” Class Mechanic to Charge Hand despite the continued existence of the practice of so designating suitably qualified workers when the occasion arises. It is not denied that the worker was first employed in July 1973 as a General Labourer and that he worked his way up the ranks to the position of “A” class mechanic in April, 1980. He is at present assigned to the Service Section of the Company's operations at Brighton as “A” class Mechanic. The worker claims to have acted as Charge Hand during the period 1982 to 1987, but says that as from 1988, the position of Charge Hand has not been filled even though provision for its continuation exists in the collective agreement. Accordingly, it is the refusal of the Company to fill this position that has given rise to the instant dispute.

2 According to the testimony of the worker, the sole witness for the Union sometime in late 1986 or early 1987 (he could not be more specific) following the merger of Textrin & Trintoc his supervisor a Mr. Kassim Ali approached him with a preposition to become a Charge Hand. Foreman Alexis, and a Mr. Benjamin of the La Brea branch of the union were present when the matter was discussed. The area of operations had expended from the Brighton/Parryland area to include the Vessigny - Cruse area and he believed that it was this increased level of responsibility that had prompted the Company's proposition. He had agreed to the proposal but had received no increased remuneration for the additional work performed. He conceded that there was never a Charge Hand in the Service Crew Section of the Company's Maintenance unit as such. The court was told that in the Brighton Workshop where the worker is based there is a Mechanical Crew and a Service Crew. The Mechanical Crew is responsible for heavy maintenance and repair of equipment and consists of a Forman, Charge Hand, Mechanics A and B and Serviceman/Labourer.

3 The Service Crew comprises an “A” Class Mechanic and a Serviceman. This was because the nature of the work involved in servicing was confined to topping up oils and lubricants at the various well locations, and to effecting minor repairs to pumping equipment.

4 Repairs involving the taking of equipment ear of service were handled by the Mechanical Crew. The Charge Hand in the Mechanical Crew supervised the Mechanics in the service crew.

5 Mr. Ramjattan Rath substantive Maintenance Supt. at the Company in charge of the Point Fortin and Brighton Area (Field 3.4), testified for the Company. His testimony was in the nature of a broad overview of the Company's operations in the area. He was not in a position to be specific about the actual points raised by the union as to the duties performed by the worker, but he expressed doubts as to whether a person of the rank of Supervisor as Mr. Kassim Ali was, could give the undertaking alleged by the Union that a particular individual would be promoted to the rank of Charge Hand. The most such a Supervisor could do he said was to make a recommendation to that effect. Mr. Wooding for the Company submitted that the real issue lay in the question of Management's Prerogative to employ and pre mote its personnel, and quoted Clause (4)(1) of the relevant Collective Agreement which sets out Management's Rights in the following terms.

MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT, JOB SECURITY, SEVERANCE PAY

• (1) MANAGEMENT RIGHT

  • (1) The right to manage its own operations, and to direct its working force including the right to decide its labour requirements and to employ those workers it considers most suitable...