IDT rules CTL employees were unjustifiably dismissed after 2016 strike

THE INDUSTRIAL Disputes Tribunal (IDT) has found that 16 employees of the engineering department of the now-divested Caymanas Track Limited (CTL) were unjustifiably dismissed when they took industrial action in August 2016.

On Thursday, the tribunal ordered that the dismissed workers must each be paid five months’ basic pay, to be calculated at the rates paid to each person at the date of the termination of their employment.

However, the tribunal said in its findings that the workers were “not innocent bystanders” and were party to their own dismissal.

The tribunal found also that CTL did not follow due process or the Labour Code in dismissing the workers nor were they afforded natural justice because they were not allowed an opportunity to present their case.

Strike action by the workers had resulted in the cancellation of the race day on Saturday, August 13, 2016.

CTL was a public owned company by the Government and operated for the sole purpose of both local and simulcast thoroughbred racing and wagering.

It was divested in 2017 to Supreme Ventures Ltd (SVL).

The workers, who were represented by the Union of Technical Administrative and Supervisory Personnel, were fired on August 22, 2016.

“Considering all the circumstances, we find that the dismissal of the workers by CTL was unjustifiable. However, the racing operations of CTL were divested in 2017 and as a consequence none of the workers can be reinstated,” the tribunal ruled.

STRAINED RELATIONSHIP

The company’s case was that the relationship between management and the engineering department became strained, particularly because of a pay plan developed by the Ministry of Finance and Planning in December 2014.

The pay plan was questioned by the engineering department on the basis that other workers in the company were on par with them and demanded a review.

Following threats of industrial action, a meeting was held with representatives of the ministry after which a review of the process was done. They demanded a review but the results did not appease the workers.

The proposed divestment to SVL resulted in CTL instituting a programme to train both its staff as well as personnel from SVL. The introduction of the programme resulted in restiveness among workers in the engineering department.

The unrest eventually led to the separation of the workers which the company claimed was justified and called four witnesses to testify before the tribunal.

A witness from the Cybercrimes Unit testified that his investigations revealed that someone tried to hide the file from the system by changing the file date from August 11, 2016 to November 11, 2014.

The company submitted that the employees’ withdrawal of services were misconceived and unlawful and amounted to repudiation of their contract of employment, entitling the CTL to lawfully dismiss them.

It further argued that the removal of critical computer files was a serious breach of misconduct and/or the Cybercrimes Act. The company argued that such criminal conduct was incompatible with the due and faithful discharge of duties by the dismissed employees and in the circumstances their summary dismissal was justifiable.

In outlining its case, the union referred to the engineering department as the brainchild of CTL, as it provided the software and personnel required to input, maintain and service all technical, electrical and software related components of the company.

The union called witnesses who were from the engineering department and one of them said they saw the training that was to take place as an attempt to replace them. The witness said during a meeting on August 11, 2016, accusations were levelled at the department about a missing file from the computer room.

Leighton Pryce, the chief union delegate, said a threat was made by one of the company’s executives to dismiss all the workers if the file was not found.

UNJUST, UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE

The union submitted that the summary dismissal of the workers, none of whom were the subject of any disciplinary action, and without providing justification for the termination, must be construed as unjust, unfair and unreasonable. The union emphasised that the workers were never charged for any violation of the company’s rules and the union was never advised of any breaches by the employees.

“We find that the workers were engaged in a wild cat strike resulting in disruption to the racing and economic losses to the company over what appeared to be a practical and relevant training programme. We believe that the introduction of the training programme was the prerogative of management and they had a right to introduce it. The workers were, therefore, not innocent bystanders,” the tribunal held.

Commenting further, the tribunal said it found that Pryce, the chief delegate, played a major role in creating the unrest at CTL which led to the dismissal of the workers.

“He (Pryce) apparently had so much to lose and therefore seemed to skilfully orchestrate the support of the workers in the engineering department for the subsequent unrest at CTL. The workers were therefore party to their own dismissal,” the tribunal said.

The company was represented by attorneys-at-law Wentworth Charles and Georgia Henry Samuels along with its then Chief Executive Officer Errol Robinson.

Attorney-at-law Lemar Neale represented the union.

editorial@gleanerjm.com