News

Industrial Court dismisses major CWU case against TSTT. Judges uphold there was no agreement in 2007

Port of Spain, Trinidad - The Industrial Court today upheld the no case submission made by attorneys for TSTT regarding claims made by the CWU that both parties had reached an agreement to settle outstanding salaries in December 2007. The CWU subsequently claimed that TSTT had reneged on this agreement. The Court’s decision effectively dismisses claims that were repeatedly made in public by the CWU over the past 3 years that such an agreement existed.

In an immediate reaction, TSTT’s Vice President HR and Administration Edghill Messiah noted that the CWU had persistently staged protests on this issue over the past three years. “Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act is very clear, in that a memorandum of agreement must be signed by both parties if the Court is to rule that such an agreement exists. The CWU knows this better than anyone else but clearly still chose the route of misleading their members and by extension the public in repeatedly claiming that TSTT had reneged on an agreement.”

The case, TD 20 of 2008 - whether there was an agreement between the Company and the CWU on 11th December 2007 with respect to salary increases was heard over three days at the Industrial Court ending 22nd July 2010. In delivering its ruling, the Court indicated that there was no evidence it could consider as a binding legal agreement between the parties. The Union was unable to provide any evidence to the Court that (a) the specific procedures required by the law in section 58 for agreements were fulfilled, (b) there was a written agreement between the parties which could be enforced by the Court (c) as such, an agreement was registered in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Act. In addition, the Court pointed out that the Union’s own evidence was deficient in supporting its case with one of its own witnesses admitting that at no time did they present TSTT with a document setting out the terms of the agreement. The Court added that the mere claim of an agreement does not satisfy the requirements of the Act.

In light of the Union's inability to substantiate its allegation that there was an agreement, Senior Counsel for TSTT, Martin Daly, submitted to the Court that the Company had no case to answer and he therefore urged the Court to dismiss the trade dispute. The Court reserved its ruling to today, August 9th 2010 and delivered the decision to dismiss the CWU’s case.

With the conclusion of this case, the Court will resume deliberations on TD 6 of 2007 in order to deliver its decision on the new collective agreement for Junior Staff between TSTT and the CWU.,The Industrial Court today upheld the no case submission made by attorneys for TSTT regarding claims made by the CWU that both parties had reached an agreement to settle outstanding salaries in December 2007. The CWU subsequently claimed that TSTT had reneged on this agreement. The Court’s decision effectively dismisses claims that were repeatedly made in public by the CWU over the past 3 years that such an agreement existed.

In an immediate reaction, TSTT’s Vice President HR and Administration Edghill Messiah noted that the CWU had persistently staged protests on this issue over the past three years. “Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act is very clear, in that a memorandum of agreement must be signed by both parties if the Court is to rule that such an agreement exists. The CWU knows this better than anyone else but clearly still chose the route of misleading their members and by extension the public in repeatedly claiming that TSTT had reneged on an agreement.”

The case, TD 20 of 2008 - whether there was an agreement between the Company and the CWU on 11th December 2007 with respect to salary increases was heard over three days at the Industrial Court ending 22nd July 2010. In delivering its ruling, the Court indicated that there was no evidence it could consider as a binding legal agreement between the parties. The Union was unable to provide any evidence to the Court that (a) the specific procedures required by the law in section 58 for agreements were fulfilled, (b) there was a written agreement between the parties which could be enforced by the Court (c) as such, an agreement was registered in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Act. In addition, the Court pointed out that the Union’s own evidence was deficient in supporting its case with one of its own witnesses admitting that at no time did they present TSTT with a document setting out the terms of the agreement. The Court added that the mere claim of an agreement does not satisfy the requirements of the Act.

In light of the Union's inability to substantiate its allegation that there was an agreement, Senior Counsel for TSTT, Martin Daly, submitted to the Court that the Company had no case to answer and he therefore urged the Court to dismiss the trade dispute. The Court reserved its ruling to today, August 9th 2010 and delivered the decision to dismiss the CWU’s case.

With the conclusion of this case, the Court will resume deliberations on TD 6 of 2007 in order to deliver its decision on the new collective agreement for Junior Staff between TSTT and the CWU.,The Industrial Court today upheld the no case submission made by attorneys for TSTT regarding claims made by the CWU that both parties had reached an agreement to settle outstanding salaries in December 2007. The CWU subsequently claimed that TSTT had reneged on this agreement. The Court’s decision effectively dismisses claims that were repeatedly made in public by the CWU over the past 3 years that such an agreement existed.

In an immediate reaction, TSTT’s Vice President HR and Administration Edghill Messiah noted that the CWU had persistently staged protests on this issue over the past three years. “Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act is very clear, in that a memorandum of agreement must be signed by both parties if the Court is to rule that such an agreement exists. The CWU knows this better than anyone else but clearly still chose the route of misleading their members and by extension the public in repeatedly claiming that TSTT had reneged on an agreement.”

The case, TD 20 of 2008 - whether there was an agreement between the Company and the CWU on 11th December 2007 with respect to salary increases was heard over three days at the Industrial Court ending 22nd July 2010. In delivering its ruling, the Court indicated that there was no evidence it could consider as a binding legal agreement between the parties. The Union was unable to provide any evidence to the Court that (a) the specific procedures required by the law in section 58 for agreements were fulfilled, (b) there was a written agreement between the parties which could be enforced by the Court (c) as such, an agreement was registered in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Act. In addition, the Court pointed out that the Union’s own evidence was deficient in supporting its case with one of its own witnesses admitting that at no time did they present TSTT with a document setting out the terms of the agreement. The Court added that the mere claim of an agreement does not satisfy the requirements of the Act.

In light of the Union's inability to substantiate its allegation that there was an agreement, Senior Counsel for TSTT, Martin Daly, submitted to the Court that the Company had no case to answer and he therefore urged the Court to dismiss the trade dispute. The Court reserved its ruling to today, August 9th 2010 and delivered the decision to dismiss the CWU’s case.

With the conclusion of this case, the Court will resume deliberations on TD 6 of 2007 in order to deliver its decision on the new collective agreement for Junior Staff between TSTT and the CWU.,The Industrial Court today upheld the no case submission made by attorneys for TSTT regarding claims made by the CWU that both parties had reached an agreement to settle outstanding salaries in December 2007. The CWU subsequently claimed that TSTT had reneged on this agreement. The Court’s decision effectively dismisses claims that were repeatedly made in public by the CWU over the past 3 years that such an agreement existed.

In an immediate reaction, TSTT’s Vice President HR and Administration Edghill Messiah noted that the CWU had persistently staged protests on this issue over the past three years. “Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act is very clear, in that a memorandum of agreement must be signed by both parties if the Court is to rule that such an agreement exists. The CWU knows this better than anyone else but clearly still chose the route of misleading their members and by extension the public in repeatedly claiming that TSTT had reneged on an agreement.”

The case, TD 20 of 2008 - whether there was an agreement between the Company and the CWU on 11th December 2007 with respect to salary increases was heard over three days at the Industrial Court ending 22nd July 2010. In delivering its ruling, the Court indicated that there was no evidence it could consider as a binding legal agreement between the parties. The Union was unable to provide any evidence to the Court that (a) the specific procedures required by the law in section 58 for agreements were fulfilled, (b) there was a written agreement between the parties which could be enforced by the Court (c) as such, an agreement was registered in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Act. In addition, the Court pointed out that the Union’s own evidence was deficient in supporting its case with one of its own witnesses admitting that at no time did they present TSTT with a document setting out the terms of the agreement. The Court added that the mere claim of an agreement does not satisfy the requirements of the Act.

In light of the Union's inability to substantiate its allegation that there was an agreement, Senior Counsel for TSTT, Martin Daly, submitted to the Court that the Company had no case to answer and he therefore urged the Court to dismiss the trade dispute. The Court reserved its ruling to today, August 9th 2010 and delivered the decision to dismiss the CWU’s case.

With the conclusion of this case, the Court will resume deliberations on TD 6 of 2007 in order to deliver its decision on the new collective agreement for Junior Staff between TSTT and the CWU.