Liat (1974) Ltd v Thomas

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Lewis, P.
• Judgment Date: 25 July 1977
• Docket Number: No. 4 of 1977
• Date: 25 July 1977

Industrial Court

Lewis P.; Ford, J. (Member); Caines, J. (Member)

No. 4 of 1977

Liat (1974) Ltd.

and

Thomas

Steve A. Browne, Barrister-at-Law for employer/claimant

Antigua Workers' Union ( D. Halstead) for employee/respondent

Jurisdiction and procedure - Courts — Industrial Court (Antigua).

Lewis, P.

1 Two preliminary objections have been taken on behalf of the employee/respondent which are designed to show that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this reference.

2 Objection 1(a) reads as follows:–

“This respondents submit that the claimant has no authority to refer the dispute to the court, having regard to the fact that the dispute was referred to the Labour Commissioner on the 14 ^th February, 1977, under section B5(2)(a) of the Labour Code. (See reference to L.C. attached and mark (sic) Appendix A)”

3 The arguments adduced in support of this objection were:– (a) The Industrial Court has no jurisdiction “at large” to hear trade disputes; it can only hear trade disputes which fall within the purview of the Industrial Court Act; (b) the only period in time when a party can refer a dispute to the court is when that dispute has been referred to the Labour Commissioner's jurisdiction; (c) the Labour Commissioner's jurisdiction to conciliate a trade dispute under the Industrial Court Act is ten days. It should also be noted that the Labour Commissioner is under a statutory duty by section B5(2)(b) of the Labour Code to forward a full report to the Minister if he fails to achieve a voluntary adjustment or settlement of a matter; (d) if the ten day period under section 19(2) of the Industrial Court Act has expired it is no longer open to a party to a trade dispute to refer the dispute to the court; (e) ten days would have expired on February 14 ^th, 1977 and the claimant should have exercised its right to refer the matter to the court before the ten day period had expired if it desired that the matter should reach the court; alternatively, the claimant could have sought to influence the Minister act under section 19(1) of the Industrial Court Act and refer the matter to the court as the Minister has wide powers so to do; (f) action could also have been taken under section C63 and C64 of the Labour Code. The powers under these sections are further increased by section 19(1) of the Industrial Court Act; (g) the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Minister when it was referred to this court by the claimant and is still within the Minister's jurisdiction. In dealing with this matter reference must be made to section K14 of the Antigua Labour Code No.14 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the code”). This section appears in Division K of the code. Part II of this division is headed “Trade Disputes” and it contains the procedure which would normally be followed in settling trade disputes. This procedure is set out in section K14(1) of the code and it will be observed that the means prescribed in this sub-section for settling a trade dispute under the code is that specified in section B5(2)(a) and no other.

4 The procedure referred to in section K14(1) of the code is that “should the existence of any trade dispute come to the attention of the Minister of the Labour Commissioner”, whether by any other means, the Labour Commissioner shall immediately, using the means described in section B5(2)(a) seek to settle the matter by voluntary adjustment or settlement.”

5 Section 19 of the Industrial Court Act 4 of 1976 (hereinafter called Athe act”) introduces modifications into the procedure contained in the code for settling trade disputes.

6 A letter marked “Appendix A”, dated February 4 ^th, 1977, attached to the employee's memorandum and admitted in evidence as exhibit RES 1 was written to the Assistant Secretary of the Antigua Workers' Union on the employee's behalf to the Labour Commissioner, and therein the Labour Commissioner was informed that a dispute existed between the employee and the management of L.I.A.T., his employer, and he was asked to convene a meeting to resolve the dispute. Attached to this letter was a statement by the employee containing his complaint against his employer and stating that he has been unfairly dismissed on January 27 ^th, 1977.

7 The dispute having been brought to the attention of the Labour Commissioner, he, in pursuance of the direction contained in section K14(1) of the code to deal with the matter in the manner prescribed by section B5(2)(a) requested both parties to meet him. In so doing he was...