Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
The Industrial Court Special Tribunal delivered a judgment on 18 February 2022, and ruled that it would be too expensive for the Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC) to pay any increased salaries at this time.
As such, the workers T&TEC were not awarded any salary increases for the period 2015 to 2017. T&TEC had pleaded its inability to pay any increases, while the OWTU requested an increase of 12 per cent.
In a rather surprising judgment delivered on 6 November 2024, between the Estate Police Association (EPA) and the Central Bank, the Special Tribunal of the Industrial Court awarded the precepted security personnel at the Central Bank a 6 per cent increase for the period 2015 to 2017.
What is strange and questionable about this judgment is that the Central Bank had offered the workers a 9 per cent increase. Interestingly, two members of the panel that presided over the T&TEC judgement also presided over the Central Bank judgment.
In the judgement, the Special Tribunal stated that it is guided and even bound by the legislation which established it and, as such, clothed itself behind the veil of the following pieces of legislation:
Section 21(6) of the Civil Service Act: “In addition to taking into account any submissions, arguments and evidence presented or tendered by or on behalf of the appropriate recognised association and the Chief Personnel Officer, the Special Tribunal in its judgment shall be guided by the considerations set out in Section 20(2)(a) to (f) of the Industrial Relations Act.”
Section 20 (2) a to (f) of the IRA: “(2) Upon any intervention by the Attorney General under subsection (1) it shall be open to him to submit that the Court, in addition to taking into account any submissions, arguments and evidence presented or tendered by or on behalf of the employers concerned and the workers concerned, be guided by the following considerations:
- “(a) the necessity to maintain and expand the level of employment;
- “(b) the necessity to ensure to workers a fair share of increases in productivity in enterprises;
- “(c) the necessity for the establishment and maintenance of reasonable differentials in rewards between different categories of skills;
(via EPATT)
- “(d) the necessity to maintain and improve the standard of living of workers;
- “(e) the necessity to preserve and promote the competitive position of products of Trinidad and Tobago in the domestic market as well as in overseas markets;
- “(f) the need to ensure the continued ability of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to finance development programmes in the public sector.”
Most significantly, the tribunal, under the cloak of the legislations referred to above, invoked the provisions of Section 10 (3) (a) and (b) of the IRA, which states as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other rule of law to the contrary, the Court in the exercise of its powers shall —
- “(a) make such order or award in relation to a dispute before it as it considers fair and just, having regard to the interests of the persons immediately concerned and the community as a whole;
- “(b) act in accordance with equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case before it, having regard to the principles and practices of good industrial relations.”
The Tribunal expressly stated its understanding of the collective bargaining process but curiously also expressed its surprise with the Central Bank’s offer of 9 per cent to the EPA.
The Bank made this offer in accordance with the collective bargaining process and the spirit of good and proper industrial relations practices while taking into account its ability to pay.
So, the Special Tribunal of the Industrial Court—whose vision is to be fair, equitable and expeditious in dispensing social justice while acting in accordance with equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case before it, having regard to the principles and practices of good industrial relations—ordered that the workers be awarded an increase of 6 per cent for the period 2015 to 2017.
While there appears to be a contradiction between the Special Tribunal of the Industrial Court’s vision and this judgment, it is hoped, however, that this judgement does not have a hangover from the ruling by the Privy Council.
The Privy Council ruling dismissed an appeal by the Special Tribunal in a dispute involving the EPA and its authority to represent 42 estate constables dismissed by the Royal Bank of Canada in 2014.
The Privy Council was critical of the conduct of the Special Tribunal and pointed to the Tribunal abdicating its statutory duties and acting with an interest in the outcome on behalf of a third party without notifying it of the appeal.
The Privy Council highlighted that the Tribunal lost sight of the principles of impartiality and neutrality, which should govern its conduct as a judicial body, and noted that it raised no arguable point of law in the appeal before it.
As a result, the EPA called on the relevant authorities to remove Mr Lawrence Achong as president of the Essential Services Division.
This is because the president of the Essential Services Division sits as the chairman of the Special Tribunal in accordance with Section 21 (1) of the Civil Service Act, which states as follows:
“There shall be established a Special Tribunal which shall consist of the chairman of the Essential Services Division of the Industrial Court and two other members of that Division selected by him.”
This action was deemed necessary in order to appoint a new chairman of the Special Tribunal and comply with the Privy Council’s directives.
It is important to ventilate the foregoing as the Section 21 (4 and5) of the Civil Service Act further states as follows:
“(4) An award made by the Special Tribunal shall be final. (5) The Special Tribunal may provide its own procedure for the hearing and determination of any dispute referred to it.
It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
This dictum was laid down by Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of Rex v Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256.
What is important in this judgment is not what was actually done but what might appear to have been done.
Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.
“[…] The Cabinet has adopted the same arguments advanced by trade unionists in support of their claims for hefty increases Read more
The autocratic nature of our politics is most memorably captured in the sordid 1962 episode featuring Dr Patrick Solomon, minister Read more
“[…] It is my view therefore that a decision to alter the Coat of Arms should not have been made Read more
From the onset I wish to indicate that I hold no brief for either the outgoing office holder or the Read more
Trade unionist, actor, attorney at law, politician and Trinbagonian legend, Basdeo Panday has passed. He was well known for his Read more
“[…] What do the employers and the one percent want? The objective is to maximise their profits by minimising their Read more
Bryan St Louis is a former education officer for the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU).
