Court throws out JRF Inc claim against IDT

The Full Court has ruled that the fact that members of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) are appointed by a government minister, does not equate to a finding that in any matter involving government and its officials, the members are unable to be impartial.

The court made the ruling on Friday when it threw out a claim brought by the Jamaica Redevelopment Foundation (JRF) Inc seeking a declaration that the IDT as presently constituted was not an independent and impartial authority established by law and was therefore unconstitutional.

A claim was filed in the Supreme Court in 2021 by the JRF following a dispute between it and a former employee, Margaret Curtis, over the termination of her contract of employment.

The dispute was referred by the minister of labour and social security to the IDT.

JRF took the issue to court and was seeking a stay of the hearing until the IDT was reconstituted in a manner that ensures its independence and impartiality as guaranteed by the Constitution.

JRF is an American company which had bought the FINSAC debt. Curtis, who had been formerly employed to the claimant, had brought a complaint involving the termination of her contract of employment.

While proceedings were ongoing at the IDT, the claimant took the matter to court contending that sections of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA) Act violate the doctrine of separation of powers due to the increased jurisdiction of the IDT, without the corresponding protection being afforded to the members of the tribunal; and secondly, the composition of the members of the tribunal who are appointed by the minister raises questions as to their independence and therefore will prejudice the claimant’s right to a fair hearing.

Defendants were the attorney general and the IDT.

Attorney-at-law Gavin Goffe, who represented the JRF, submitted, among other things, that the members of the IDT were selected by the minister, the very minister who can unilaterally refer matters to them for consideration.

Attorney-at-law Lisa White, instructed by the director of state proceedings, submitted that in reference to the power of the minister to make referrals, the LRIDA carefully outlined the scope of the referral. She said the minister was authorised to act only in the public or national interest or in the interest of industrial peace.

“Although the members of the IDT are appointed by the minister, this does not by itself demonstrate bias on the part of the chairperson or its members. The fact that persons are appointed by the minister does not equate to a finding that in any matter involving government and government officials, the members are unable to be impartial. There is therefore no basis to find that the members of the IDT would have any reason to be biased in favour of the employee,” the court, comprising Justice Sonya Wint-Blair, Justice Tricia Hutchinson-Shelly and Justice Tara Carr, ruled.

The court said that there was nothing in the evidence of the claimant to connect the comments made or the methods employed in the resolution of disputes to a finding of bias on the part of a tribunal that has not been identified and whose members are from a wide range of persons who are selected with the input of the parties.

In conclusion, the court said the claimant had failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the right under section 16(2) of the Charter is likely to be breached.

Appearing with Goffe were attorneys-at-law Matthew Royal and Jovan Bowes instructed by Myers, Fletcher & Gordon.

The IDT had ordered the JRF to pay Curtis an award of US$203,280 in 2022 for wrongful dismissal. Curtis had worked as department manager from April 2002 to August 2018 until her service was terminated.

editorial@gleanerjm.com