Water and Sewerage Authority v National Union of Government and Federated Workers

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Riley-Hayes, C.
• Judgment Date: 24 July 1991
• Court: Industrial Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Docket Number: E.S.D. 27 of 1986
• Date: 24 July 1991

Industrial Court

Riley-Hayes, C.;

Ashby, M.

E.S.D. 27 of 1986

Water and Sewerage Authority

and

National Union of Government and Federated Workers

Appearances:

Mr. R. Guisseppi - Negotiator for party no. 1.

Mr. V. Applewhite - Attorney-at-Law for party no. 2.

Industrial law - Termination of employment — Dismissal for loss of confidence in worker — Whether harsh and oppressive — Worker found climbing over gate in possession of Authority's property — Dismissal justified.

Riley-Hayes, C.

1 In this dispute the National Union of Government and Federated Workers (“the Union”) is contesting the dismissal by the Water and Sewerage Authority (‘the Authority’) of William Horsford, Electrician (“the worker”) on the 8th February 1985 for loss of confidence in the following circumstances. The Authority alleges that on the 26th December 1983 the worker was apprehended by one of its estate police officers, Sargent Anthony, as he attempted dubiously to leave the Authority's compound in possession of six fluorescent light tubes. Six fluorescent light tubes of same description as those found in the worker's possession were on that day discovered missing from the Authority's stores. The worker, as Electrician, had access to the said stores. The worker, as Electrician, had access to the said stores. The worker, as Electrician, had access to the said stores. The Authority held an inquiry into the matter on 13th November 1984 and the worker failed to give any or any satisfactory explanation of his possession of the said six fluorescent tubes. The Union alleges that the dismissal of the worker is harsh and oppressive for the fluorescent tubes purported to have been missing were never in the worker's possession. Further the worker was acquitted on a charge of larceny of the said tubes at the Scarborough Magistrate's Court and the Authority at its inquiry into the matter did not substantiate the charge of larceny laid against the worker.

2 Before addressing the issues and the evidence adduced in respect thereof, it should be noted that the reason for dismissal of the worker was loss of confidence and not larceny as stated by the Union. Further an acquittal on a criminal charge arising out of the same set of facts as those occasioning the dismissal of a worker does not ipso facto exonerate the worker of any culpability in respect of charge giving rise to his dismissal.

3 The standard of proof in a criminal matter is beyond reasonable doubt and in a dismissal matter the civil standard applies - proof on a balance of probabilities.

4 The Authority relied on documentary evidence and on the viva voce evidence of witnesses. The following is the documentary evidence. The standard of proof in a criminal matter is beyond reasonable doubt and in a dismissal matter the civil standard applies - proof on a balance of probabilities.

5 The Authority relied on documentary evidence and on the viva voce evidence of witnesses. The following is the documentary evidence.

6 C.D.1 A receipt from Mohammed's Electrical Company Limited of Real Street San Juan in respect of the purchase inter alia of 6 40 - watts tubes. The receipt was dated 23/12/83 but the year “83” was queried.

7 F.A.1 A letter elated 11th April 1985 put into evidence by Estate Sargeant F. Anthony from Robert F. Fawcett of the Trinidad and Tobago Forensic Science Centre to the 151 W.A.S.A. E. Estate Police Headquarters St. Augustine. The letter is in respect of the receipt C.D. 1 and states inter alia.

• “1) Microscope examination of the date, using different lighting techniques, has disclosed that the date should read 23rd December 1984 rather than 23rd December 1983.

• 2) Examination and comparison of the numeral A4” under the A3” with the other numeral fours on the bill has disclosed agreement in design, proportions, slant and movement.

8 The numeral four in the date could have been executed by the writer of the fours which appear in the body of the bill.”

9 J.C.1 A statement date 12/12/84 by Estate Inspector Joshua Cupid from Rouston Mohamed which is as follows:

“I am of the owner of MOHAMMED ELECTRICAL COMPANY LIMITED, #1 Real Street Juan. On Receipt # 58451 which I issued to Mr. Horsford with items namely -

6 - 40 watts tubes	$5.75 34.50
4 - B/C E. Rec.	$1.10 4.40
4 - W6 S/T plug	$6.95 27.80
Total	66.70
Less	6.67
	60.03

The date on this Bill was tampered with and I don't know anything about it.

/s/ R. Mohammed

12/12/84”

10 and

Y.S.1 Minutes of the proceeding at the Authority's inquiry into the matter on 13/11/84. Minutes are dated … even date and were taken by and put into evidence by Yvette … Administrative Officer II of the Authority.

11 With respect to documents C.D.A, F.A.1 and J.C.1 an inconsistency should be noted, J.C.1, the Statements of Rouston Mohammed, is dated 12/12/84. This date appears three times in the statement - in the heading, in the writing of Inspector Cupid, who took the statement, beneath the signature of Mr. Mohammed in the hand of Mr. Mohammed and at the end before the signature of Inspector Cupid who took the statement: “…signed at 11.30 on Wednesday 12th December 1984.”

12 Mr. Mohammed stated that the date on the receipts was tampered with. This was corroborated by the forensic evidence put in as F.A.1. But the finding of the forensic department is that the 4 in 1984 was changed to 3, the effect of which evidence is to suggest that Mr. Mohammed made his statement on 12th December 1984, in respect of a receipt which he issued on a date subsequent to his making the statement 23rd December 1984, which despite all the advances in modern science and technology is an impossibility. The possibility of an error in the date of the statement of Mr. Mohammed is rendered somewhat remote by the fact that the date appears three times on the document and was verified by both himself and Inspector Cupid, each under his own hand. The date does show potent evidence of tampering, the 3 in 83 being clearly written over a figure but an element of doubt remains.

13 The most material evidence adduced by the Authority is that of Estate Sargent Anthony who said that he had caught the worker an electrician in flagrante delicto in that he saw him climbing a six foot gate of pipe and B.R.C. wire at the back of the Authority's premises and not at the access road. This gate was locked...