Mrs. Norma E. Maynard-Marshall Iton, attorney at law for party no. 2.
Mr. Desmond Bishop, Secretary General., Mr. C. Bernard, attorney at law, Miss Patricia Sobion, attorney at law, Miss Lynette Ramoutar, attorney at law, Mr. Terrence Peale, attorney at law on behalf of Attorney General
Statute - Interpretation — Industrial Relations Act, section 20 — Intervention of Attorney General on question of public importance affecting public interest.
Industrial law - Collective agreement — Trade dispute — Breakdown in negotiation for conclusion of new collective agreement — Conciliation proceedings — Unresolved items referred to court for settlement — Various items withdrawn with agreement of parties — Disputed items — Overtime — Transfers, acting pay and dislocation allowance — Subsistence allowance — Sleeping out allowance — Good health bonus — Redundancy and severance pay — Wreck out and tow in allowance — Instructions allowance — Tool allowance — Wages — Cost of living allowance — Consideration by court of comparative pay reports and audited financial statements — Consideration of budget speeches to show reduced level of government funding to public utilities — Settlement of disputed items by court.
This trade dispute arose out of the breakdown in negotiations between Public Transport Service Corporation (“the Corporation”) and the Transport and Industrial Workers' Union (“the Union”) for the conclusion of a new collective agreement (“the Agreement”) on behalf of the hourly, daily and weekly rated workers of the Corporation for the period 1st January, 1986 to 31st December, 1988.
The Union submitted proposals to the Corporation for inclusion in the Agreement on 8th September, 1986, but the parties having failed to reach agreement on all of the Union's proposals, the Corporation reported the dispute to the Honourable Minister of Labour on 7th May, 1987.
On the commencement of conciliation proceedings before the Minister, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement on 25th March. 1988 in respect of items included in 29 (twenty-nine) Articles of the Agreement on which, the Minister stated, tentative agreement had been reached in direct bilateral negotiations.
The parties reached agreement on several other items in conciliation before the Minister and a further Memorandum of Agreement was executed by the parties on 19th July, 1988.
The Minister referred the unresolved items to the Industrial Court (“the court”) on 20th September, 1988 in accordance with section 61(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 88:01 (“the Act”).
Attached to the Minister's referral as Appendix I was the Memorandum of Agreement of 25th March, 1988. Also attached in accordance with section 58(1) of the Act as Appendix II, was the Memorandum of Agreement dated 19th July, 1988.
The items referred by the Minister were as follows:
The hearing of this dispute commenced on 23rd February, 1989 and was completed on 28th March, 1991. Numerous adjournments, some for reasons beyond the control of the court or the parties, for example, the frequent failure of the air conditioning units and the consequent excessive heat in the court room, delayed the completion of the proceedings.
The parties delivered Evidence and Arguments in writing and the Financial Controller of the Corporation, Mr. Anthony Taitt, gave oral evidence on behalf of the Corporation. The Union elected not to lead oral evidence and relied entirely on its written Evidence and Arguments.
Miss Kathleen George, Ag. Director of Research prepared a study of comparative pay between the Corporation and certain state and state-related enterprises and some pay trend-setters in the country in respect of selected bench mark jobs. The study was delivered in four reports. The first two reports dated 7th November, 1989 and 23rd January, 1990 were designed to provide the framework and methodology of the study and the other two reports dated 2nd February, 1990 and 23rd February, 1990 were intended to provide the analysis on which conclusions could be drawn and to assist the court in coming to its decisions. Miss George also gave oral testimony on the study.
The court directed the Corporation to submit audited financial statements for the years 1983 to 1988. The Corporation however submitted unaudited financial statements for the years 1983 to 1986 because its accounts for those years had not been audited. Financial statements for the years 1987 and 1988 had not been completed and the Corporation supplied unaudited Income Statements for those years. The Corporation also provided supplemental financial data as requested by the court.
The Attorney General at his own instance intervened under section 20 of the Act as in his opinion, questions of public importance affecting the public interest had arisen in this dispute and it was fit and proper that the public interest should be represented.
Section 20(2) of the Act reads as follows:
and the court may take such matters into consideration.”
The court noted that the following disputed items were not referred by the Minister but were nevertheless included in the Evidence and Arguments of the parties:–
These issues were addressed in the submissions of both parties. The court, however, on careful consideration of the matter, is of the opinion that in the absence of referral by the Minister, they do not properly fall within its jurisdiction and we therefore make no orders in respect of them.
The Corporation also proposed a definition of “full pay” which would alter the frequency of wage payments from weekly to fortnightly. For the same reason we make no order in respect of this item.
The following items were withdrawn with the Agreement of the parties and the consent of the court:–
The question that the court has to consider from time to time is whether or not certain disputed items should more properly be the subject of a subsequent collective agreement, because in some cases the disputed issues are no longer applicable to the period of the Agreement under consideration. Additionally, substantive changes in the employer's operations may have taken place as a consequence of which the issues in dispute may no longer have relevance to a period subsequent to the Agreement. Mrs. Alcala on the other hand submitted that the purpose of a collective agreement is not only give effect to changes retroactively but also to incorporate changes therein that would take effect in the future, that is to say, after the expiration of the agreement.
This question was addressed by both Mr. Bishop and Mrs. Alcala in their submissions. Mr. Bishop advanced as the Union's argument why some of the Corporation's proposals should be rejected by the court, the fact that the Agreement had expired and they were no longer applicable during the period of the agreement. Mrs. Alcala on the other hand submitted that the .