Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Company Ltd v Communication Workers' Union
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | McMillan, J.A.,Des Iles, J.A.,Warner, J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1985 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1985 CA 63 |
| Docket Number | No.87/85 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 22 November 1985 |
Court of Appeal
des Iles J.A.; P.; Warner J.A.; McMillan J.A.(Ag)
No.87/85
T. Hosein, S.C., F. Solomon and Fyard Hosein for the appellant/claimant.
No appearances by the respondent /objector.
Statute - Interpretation — Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Act, Chap. 47:30, s.13 (1)(b); s. 14(1); s.18 (2) — Public Utilities Commission Act, Chap. 54:01, s.17 (1); 18(1), (2) — Whether a person who is not a subscriber with the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Co is entitled to object to a claim by the company for an increase in rates payable by subscribers for services.
McMillan, J.A. (A.G.): On 27 th June, 1985 this court made an order deeming this appeal urgent and ordered it to be placed on the list of cases for hearing on Monday 7 th October, 1985. However, because of the chaos resulting from the change of location of the Law Courts in Port of Spain to the new Hall of Justice, the Chief Justice announced at the formal opening of the new law term on 3 rd October, 1985 that court sittings would commence on Monday 14 th October and that all matters listed for hearing in all the courts before that day would be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
The appeal was subsequently listed for hearing on Wednesday 16 th October, 1985 and notice to that effect sent to the parties. An affidavit filed by Bhola Ramjattan, a messenger attached to the Registry of the Supreme Court, indicates that he duly served such a notice on Mosa Pierre Felix, a clerk-typist in the registered office of the union, on Monday 14 th October, 1985 at 2.25 p.m. Another affidavit by Ricki Theobalds, a clerk in the employ of the appellant's solicitors, indicates that a similar notice was served by him on the same day said Mosa Pierre Felix. However, the union did not appear when the matter was called on the 16 th October, 1985 even though it was stood down for a considerable time. Despite the non-appearance by the Union we have had the benefit of a full argument by senior counsel for the appellant and we are grateful to him for his assistance.
The appeal raises the question whether a person who is not a subscriber with the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Company (the company) is entitled to object to a claim by the company for an increase in rates payable by subscribers for services rendered by the company. It arose as a result of the ruling by the Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission on 7 th May, 1985 confirmed after further argument on 4 th June, 1985, in favour of the Union in which he held, inter alia, that the Union as the recognised majority union for the company's senior and junior staff employees was entitled to object to the company's claim for an increase in its rates. The grounds of appeal are: –
“1. The tribunal erred in law in ruling that the Communication Workers Union was entitled as the recognised majority union for senior and junior staff employees of the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Company Limited to file and prosecute on behalf of these employees as their representative an objection to the application of the said company for an increase in rates.
2. The tribunal erred in law in ruling that there was no onus on the Communication Workers Union to prove that it was the duly authorised agent of the senior and junior staff employees of the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Company Limited for the purpose of filing an objection to the said application.
3. The tribunal erred in law in ruling that the said senior and junior staff employees were entitled to object to the said application of the company notwithstanding that they were not subscribers as defined in the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Act Chapter 47:30.
4. The tribunal erred in law in ruling that there was prima facie evidence of the claim of the Union that it had the due authorization of the senior and junior staff employees of the said company to file and prosecute an objection on their behalf and that as such enjoyed a sufficient locus to appear as objector in the proceedings unless the said company ‘produced substantial evidence to the contrary.’
5. The tribunal erred in law in declaring that “the union or indeed a company employee at any level had the right to assist the tribunal in its deliberations (as an objector) if either is in possession of evidence that the company is not acting in compliance with regulation 31, regardless of whether such union or employee is a subscriber as defined by the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Act Chapter 47: 30.
6. The tribunal erred in law in ruling that the Communication Workers Union is a telephone subscriber and as such have locus standi before the tribunal in that capacity if necessary by amending its pleadings.”
-
a. That the objection of the Communication Workers Union filed herein in accordance with section 18 (2) the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Act Chapter 47:30 be struck out together with all subsequent pleadings filed in furtherance thereof;
-
b. A declaration to the affect thaw the Communication Workers Union as recognised majority union of the senior and junior staff employees is not entitled as such to file or maintain an objection to the claim by the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Company Limited for an increase in its rates.
The appeal is brought under section 14 (6) of the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Act, which provides: –
“(6) Any party to a matter brought before the Commission is entitled as of right to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law from any judgment, order or award of the Commission. The decision of the Court of Appeal on any matter brought before it under this subsection is final.”
The Public Utilities Commission is a creature of statute, i.e., of the Public Utilities Commission Act, Chap, 54: 01. By that Act, section 17 (1), the Commission was established a tribunal with jurisdiction: –
(a) To hear and determine complaints relating to rates payable for any service of a public utility;
(b) To hear and determine claims by a public utility for an increase of the rates payable for any of its services;
(c) To hear and determine objections to agreements under section 30 (3);
(d) To hest and determine disputes between public utilities as to any matter concerning the rates payable or to be payable for services provided by any of those public utilities;
(e) Of its own motion or at the instance of the Minister to review and determine the rate payable for any services of a public utility whether on the registration of any agreement therefore or otherwise.”
“(1) The Commission shall expeditiously hear and inquire into and investigate every matter which is before it and in particular shall hear, receive and consider statements, arguments, and evidence made, presented or tendered –
(a) by or on behalf of any complainant;
(b) by or on behalf of the public utility concerned;
(c) on behalf of the Minister.”
A “public utility” is defined by the Act (section 2) as “a statutory authority performing services to the public for which any compensation or payment whatsoever is required but does not include any public utility excluded from the provisions of this Act under section 3”; and “statutory authority” is defined as “a local and any commission, board, committee, council or similar body (whether corporate or incorporated) established by any Act or Ordinance.” I am quite sure that the word should have been “unincorporated” and not “incorporated”.
The Telephone Company is a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, Chap. 31 No. 1 (1950 Revised Laws). As such it is not a statutory authority as defined by the Public Utilities Commission Act and, therefore, is not a public utility for the purposes of that Act. However, by section 13 (1) of the Trinidad and Tobago Telephone Act, the Public Utilities Commission was established a tribunal with jurisdiction; –
“(a) To hear and determine claims by the company for an increase of the rates payable for any of its services;
(b) To hear and determine complaints of any subscriber under section 18 (2);
(c) To hear and determine objections to agreements under section 22: and
(d) Of its own motion or at the instance of the Minister to review and determine the rate, structure and level of rates payable for the services provided by the company.”
“14. (1) The Commission shall expeditiously hear and inquire into and investigate every matter which is before it and in particular shall hear, receive and consider statements, arguments and evidence made, presented or tendered –
(a) by or on behalf of any subscriber;
(b) by or on behalf of the company; and
(c) on behalf of the Minister,”
“18. (1) Where the company desires to make a claim for an increase in rates payable to it for any of its services, or for approval of a rate payable for a new service, it shall, not later than twenty-eight days before making any such claim to the Commission, cause to be published by means of advertisements in the Gazette and in any other newspaper circulating in Trinidad and Tobago a notice of its intention to make the claim.
(2) A notice required by subsection (1) shall state the particulars of the claim and also that any person who desires to object to an award or other determination allowing the claim may, before such date not earlier than twenty-one days after the publication of the advertisement as may be specified therein, make an objection against the claim for an award or determination.
(3) Upon the expiration of the period required for the publication of the notice under subsection (1) the company may make a claim in the prescribed form for an award...
To continue reading
Request your trial