Supreme Court strikes down IDT redundancy rulings

A Supreme Court judge has, in recent weeks, quashed at least two rulings by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT), finding that the quasi-judicial labour body does not have the jurisdiction to settle redundancy issues.

In the first case, the IDT, in 2014, ordered Chartermagnates Limited to pay 68 weeks of basic salary to former employee Norma Roberts, who claimed that she was entitled to redundancy payment from the company.

Her claim arose from the auditing firm Deloitte & Touche’s transfer of its business operations from Chartermagnates to Ernst & Young, which subsequently re-engaged Roberts on different terms.

However, Chartermagnates Ltd, in 2016, filed a claim against the IDT and Roberts, asserting that the disputes resolution body did not have jurisdiction over the matter.

The company argued that there exists in Jamaica the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act (ETRPA), which specifically provides that a Parish Court shall have jurisdiction over such matters (redundancy payment disputes), up to a maximum of $3 million.

Further, Chartermagnates also argued that the referral of the matter by the minister of labour to the IDT does not give the tribunal jurisdiction over the matter.

In a judgment handed down on February 14, Supreme Court judge, Justice Kirk Anderson, ruled in Chartermagnates’ favour.

“I agree with the claimant’s counsel’s submission that the IDT does not have jurisdiction over redundancy matters. If it were otherwise, the ETRPA would be rendered nugatory. The IDT does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts, in respect of redundancy matters,” Anderson said in the 16-page ruling.

Further, he concluded that the jurisdiction of the IDT is not derived from the minister of labour’s referral to it.

NO JURISDICTION

In the next matter, Cable & Wireless Jamaica Limited challenged an IDT ruling that was made in favour of former employee Winston Sewell, who claimed that he was separated from the company on the grounds of redundancy.

The telecommunications company subsequently brought a challenge against the ruling, arguing that Sewell was separated from his employment on the basis of retirement.

Justice Anderson, in a ruling also handed down on February 14, concluded that the IDT also did not have jurisdiction over the redundancy matter.

The rulings made by the IDT, in both instances, were quashed, and the court concluded that redundancy payment does not constitute an industrial dispute as set out in the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act.

nickoy.wilson@gleanerjm.com