Antigua Worker's Union v Antigua Trades & Labour Union

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 04 April 1978
• Date: 04 April 1978

Industrial Court

James, J. (Hearing Officer)

Antigua Worker's Union

and

Antigua Trades & Labour Union

Appearances:

Mr. Baldwin Spencer for A.W.U.

Mr. James T. Rose for A.T. & L.U.

Mr. Cyril Cumberbatch for A.E.F. and Antigua Catering Services

Industrial Law - Employee representation — Timeliness of petition — A.T. & L.U. applied to the Labour Commissioner to resolve employee representation question at A.C.S. — A.W.U. argued that the employees of A.C.S. did indicate by way of letter and signatures that they wished to change their trade union loyalty but were out of time and affected by section J9(5)(c) of the Labour Code — Decision that the petition was untimely but under the powers vested under section J9(7)(c) of the Labour Code a secret ballot was ordered.

Case for A. W. U.:

1 Mr. Spencer argued that there were two basic objections that the Antigua Workers' Union had in relation to the application made by the Antigua Trades and Labour Union and they were:

1

The existence of an active collective agreement between the A.VV.U. and A.C.S. Thus it was his view that the very existence of an active agreement acts as a bar to any proceedings of the challenge by the A.T. & L.U. He then made reference to “section J 9 (5) (c)” of the Labour Code. 2. When the A.T. & L.U. intervened it did so out of time and as such could not claim that it properly and legally has the right to continue proceedings, which would lead to a count being taken.

2 Continuing he said that as far as he was aware some time in February 1978 the A.T. & L.U. applied to the Labour Commissioner to resolve employee representation question at Antigua Catering Services (A.C.S.) The agreement was due to expire on the 28th February and according to J 9 (5) (c) provision (iii) if the A.T. & L.U. felt that it should intervene without the uncoerced support of the employees concerned then it should have done so at least ninety days prior to the expiration of the collective agreement which was at the time still in force.

3 Not having done that clearly violates this provision and therefore makes the application untimely and must be considered of no effect. In order for the A.T. & L.U. to be given the legal right to intervene at the time it did only the employer and the trade union signatory could waive the agreement to allow the procession of said petition.

4 The A.T. & L.U. will argue that the employees of A.C.S. did indicate by way of letter and signatures that they wished to charge their trade union loyalty but this also with due aspect to the wished of the employees was out of time as it was written on January 30th and would be affected by “section J 9 (5) (c)” while employees may have the right to say they do not want or want a particular union, in order to arrive at choosing the appropriate bargaining agent certain conditions have to be met. They would have to indicate at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the agreement indicating that they wish to change their bargaining agent. Having failed thus they are also guilty of violating the provision of the Labour, Code and therefore a count under such circumstances could be considered illegal.

5 The question of interpretation is very important because the result of this proceeding will set the pattern of how employee representative questions are resolve thus an unbiased view is necessary. Can employees or interested trade unions at any time intervene and request resolution of bargaining representation or isn't it important that in order to prevent chaos on the industrial front the question to timeliness should be resolved and everyone...