The Industrial Court has been asked to reconsider its decision to award compensation to four former employees of Carib Brewery Limited, who were found to be properly terminated for drinking on the job.
In a judgement delivered at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain, last week, Appellate Judges Allan Mendonca, Judith Jones, and Peter Rajkumar ruled that the Industrial Court failed to properly exercise its exclusive jurisdiction to order such compensation under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Relations Act.
Rajkumar, who wrote the judgement, admitted that the court’s power was extremely wide but not unlimited.
While he noted that the Court of Appeal would refuse to interfere or re-evaluate any findings made by the specialist court, Rajkumar said it was entitled to review whether the court had abided by the guidance on the exercise of its discretion under the legislation.
According to Rajkumar, the court is permitted to make compensation orders based on employees’ length of service even in the case where it found that the employee was properly terminated. Any decision taken by the court must have regard to the interests of the persons concerned and the community as a whole.
Rajkumar noted that the court failed to consider the impact on the co-workers.
“The interest of those parties in reliance on a strict enforcement of the Company’s policy was relevant. It may have recognised and taken into account that the effect of its award was to equate the workers concerned who had violated the policy, with workers who had been terminated by reason of redundancy but who had not violated the policy,” Rajkumar said.
As part of the decision, the Appeal Court set aside the Industrial Court’s awards and ordered it to reconsider its decision based on Rajkumar’s extensive analysis of its legislative power.
According to the evidence in the case, the four employees, who had between eight and 21 years’ service, were caught consuming puncheon rum while on duty.
The company attempted to send the workers for counselling but at least one refused.
They were eventually terminated after an internal disciplinary process in May 2011. Despite its decision, the company still made ex-gratia payments to the workers based on their years of service.
In its ruling in the case, brought by the National Union of Government and Federated Workers (NUGFW), the Industrial Court ruled that the terminations were in keeping with good industrial relations but still ordered the company to pay the compensation, less its previous ex-gratia payments.
The company was represented by Raphael Ajodha, while Anthony Bullock represented the NUGFW.
