About four years ago, throngs of concerned employees clamoured intensely for implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Osha). Since its proclamation in February, 2006, however, only two cases have been filed before the Industrial Court, revealed the court's president Cecil Bernard. "We haven't had the deluge of cases that was anticipated when that act was passed. "Apparently, it was felt that a lot of cases would come here from under that act, but so far that has not happened," Bernard said in an interview last week. Of the two cases, the one Bernard cited involved the serious injury of a worker after a scaffolding collapsed in Port-of-Spain. A judgment was handed down in that case, but its decision is under appeal. The other case, Bernard said, was still in the "pipeline." Saying he was not surprised that only two cases were filed under the Osha Act, Bernard said this might indicate that more grievances were being settled in the workplace, rather than redress being sought in the courts.
Describing the act as a wide, all-embracing piece of legislation, Bernard said what had come before the court was a "miniscule aspect." He said it might also signify that employers were "doing the right thing" by ensuring that Osha measures were properly implemented. "It could simply mean that people required to carry out the act in the workplace were doing a good job. "It doesn't mean to say that bad things are not being reported," Bernard said. Saying the court had always been regarded as a place where work disputes were resolved, Bernard said the court's jurisdiction in dealing with Osha matters, however, were limited. "We don't have jurisdiction over everything under the act. Certain matters can come, but not the whole gamut," Bernard said. A father of four grown children, Bernard once served in the T&T Defence Force. The 72-year-old classical music lover admitted easily that his passion was law.
Dispelling the perception that a backlog often resulted in cases being long-drawn- out, Bernard said operations at the court were efficient. Success, he attributed, was implementation of the "fixed bench" system, which ensured that cases were heard in a timely manner. "There was a time when we had a backlog of cases, but we are reasonably current in terms of the number of cases we have to deal with," Bernard said. The "fixed bench" system, he explained, was introduced about four years ago, when groups of three judges would sit together to co-ordinate adjournment dates. "Teams of three judges would sit together consistently, so that they would manage a case from the beginning until it ended. "We don't have a backlog; we will always have cases we have not dealt with, but it's not at the level that I would call a backlog," Bernard emphasised. The majority of cases filed, he cited, were dismissals, some of which were found to be harsh and oppressive.
The court has, sometimes, been affected by external factors, one of which was the unemployment rate. When that spiralled, Bernard said, more dismissal cases might be filed to coincide with the expiring of multiple collective agreements. "Most of the cases that come to us are dismissal cases. The allegation, in some instances, was people who have been dismissed constructively. In other cases, we have found the dismissal harsh and oppressive," Bernard said. Despite its smooth operations, one drawback was the slow pace of a technological upgrade of the court. "We are trying to move to a court which relies more heavily on technology. We are getting there, but we are getting there slowly. "We still rely too much on paper; we have to get in an age where paper is minimised and other forms of communication are maximised," Bernard said.
?Background:
?The Industrial Court was established on March 20, 1965 by Section Five (1) of the Industrial Stabilisation Act. The Industrial Court is a superior court of record and has a status equivalent to the High Court. It is a specialised court with its own peculiar jurisdiction, responsible for dispensing social justice. In addition to its inherent powers as a superior court of record, the court has jurisdiction to:
1. Hear and determine trade disputes
2. Register collective agreements and hear and determine matters relating to the registration of such agreements
3. Enjoin a trade union or other organisation or workers or other persons or an employer from taking or continuing industrial action
4. Hear and determine proceedings for industrial relations offences under this Act
5. Hear and determine any other matter brought before the court, pursuant to the Act