Longford et Al v Eastern Airlines Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Lewis, P.
• Judgment Date: 25 October 1977
• Docket Number: No. 10 of 1977
• Date: 25 October 1977

Industrial Court

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

No. 10 of 1977

Longford et al

and

Eastern Airlines Ltd.

Appearances:

Antigua Trades and Labour Union ( T. Rose) and A.W. Archibald, Solicitor, for the claimants

Antigua Employers' Federation ( C. Cumberbatch) and J. Callahan Attorney-at-law (U.S.A.), for the respondent

Labour Law - Industrial disputes — Discrimination (Wages).

Introductory

Lewis, P.

1 Pursuant to the provisions of section 19(1) of the Industrial Court Act 4/1976 the Minister responsible for administering the Antigua Labour Code No. 14/1975 (hereinafter called Athe code”) referred a trade dispute between the claimants and the respondent, Eastern Airlines Ltd. (“hereinafter called “the company”) to this court for determination.

2 The reference which is dated June 20 ^th, 1977 states that “the issue in dispute between the parties is:

“That in the course of negotiations for the last collective agreement the company, in combination with the Antigua Workers' Union (the authorised bargaining agent), discriminated against the above mentioned workers in regard to wages and salaries.”

3 The “above-mentioned workers” referred to in the issue in dispute are, of course, the claimants.

4 The company carries on the business of an airline operator at Coolidge in Antigua and the claimants are four of its employees.

5 On December 1 ^st or 2 ^nd, 1973 the company acquired the business in Antigua of another airline, Carib Air. This transaction involved the taking over by the company of the services of the claimants with Carib Air by which company the claimants were then employed. The result of this is that the claimants' service with the company is recorded as beginning on the date of commencement of their previous service with Carib Air.

Facts Admitted

6 The following facts were admitted -

7 The Antigua Workers' Union is the sole bargaining agent for all workers employed by the company save its management staff.

8 The claimants are members of the bargaining unit of the company.

9 The company negotiated and signed a collective agreement exhibit RES-6 with the Antigua Workers' Union which related to all of the members of the bargaining unit.

10 The collective agreement came into effect on June 1 ^st, 1976, and, as stated in Article XXVI-(b) thereof, remains in effect until May 31 ^st, 1978 subject to the conditions contained in the said article XXVI-(b).

Exhibits RES-1 and RES-6 compared

11 At an early stage of the hearing the company put in evidence with the consent of the claimants the document, Exh. RES-1, ad also made certain amendments to the company's memorandum. This exhibit which was prepared by the company is headed “Eastern Airlines Monthly Salaries,” and contains the names, grades, old rate of salaries, salaries from June 1 ^st, 1976 when the collective agreement RES-1 became effective, and also the salaries in effect from June 1 ^st, 1977. The column headed “Grade” was presumably intended to represent the classification of the jobs done by the claimants and other employee of the company. It seems to be a convenient method of description adopted by the company, but it certainly does not altogether correspond with the job classification shown in Appendix >A' on page 18 of he collective agreement. Several of the claimants had been examined and cross-examined as to the contents of exhibit RES-1 before the collective agreement RES-6 was put in evidence; and when this was done it was observed that there was some conflict between the classifications in Exh. RES-1 and exh. RES-6. The court intimated that it was bound as a matter of law to follow the classifications specified in the latter-mentioned exhibit. Accordingly, the witness who had already given evidence were recalled and examined and cross-examined on Exh. RES-6.

12 It will be observed that there is no job classification in Exh. RES-6 describing any employee as “Ramp Attendant I”, “Ramp Attendant II” or Ramp Attendant III”. The classification in appendix >A' to the collective agreement as regards Ramp Attendants is to be found in Grade Nos.3 and 4. In Grade No.3, there is reference to Ramp Attendant/Lead Porter/Driver-Messenger and this indicates that these three classes of jobs being bracketed together have the same status. In Grade No.4 is a classification, Lead Ramp Attendant/Clerk-Typist. This also shows that these two classes of jobs have similar status. There is no classification in the collective agreement of “Typist/Reservations Agent” which is the classification shown in Exh. RES-1 in relation to the claimant Mrs. J.E. Longford. A Clerk-Typist is bracketed with a Lead Ramp Attendant in Grade No.4 in appendix >A' to the collective agreement and is obviously a different classification from a Reservations Agent. We therefore conclude that Mrs. Longford is properly to be described as a Reservations Agent - which classification is referred to in Grade No.6 in appendix >A' to the collective agreement. We accept this claimant's evidence that she does the work of a Reservation Agent, typist and secretary and find as a fact that she performs the work of typist and secretary in addition to her other duties as a Reservations Agent. This finding is supported by the fact that in Exh. RES-1 she is described as “Typist/Reservations Agent - a clear admission by the company that she does other work besides that of a Reservations Agent.

Parol Evidence in Relation to Exhibit RES-6

13 On tow occasions during the course of the trial, Mr. Callahan for the company sought through two witnesses Reginald Haywood, and Bernard Cools-Lartigue, the company's Manager, to lead parol evidence to the effect that the salaries paid to the claimants and other employees mentioned in Exh. RES-1, after June 1 ^st, 1976 were arrived at during the course of negotiations between the company and the bargaining agent. This attempt in each occasion was resisted by Mr. Archibald, the Solicitor for the claimants, and the court upheld his objection that such evidence was inadmissible.

14 Mr. Callahan based his contention that this evidence was admissible on article II(a) of the collective agreement, and also on paragraph 6 of the company's memorandum which states in effect that increases of salaries are requested by the Antigua Workers' Union, and, following negotiations, are granted by the company to all workers. He admitted that Exh. RES-6 is silent as to the manner in which appendix >A' to the collective agreement is to be interpreted; and he submitted that since the agreement is silent as to the actual salaries to be paid to the company's employees, parol evidence is admissible to show that the individual salaries were arrived at during the negotiations and also how they were arrived at.

15 The collective agreement says nothing at all about the specific salary which should be paid to each worker. What is does is to fix in appendix >A' thereto a minimum and a maximum rate of salary for the duration of the agreement from June 1 ^st, 1976 to May 31 ^st, 1978 in respect to each classification in the said appendix.

16 The company's reliance on article II(a) of the collective agreement is mis-conceived. All that paragraph (a) of this article says as regards wages, is that it recognises the Antigua Workers' Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in the classifications listed in appendix “A' “with respect to wages, hours, and conditions of employment.” In other words it recognises that one of the matters with which the bargaining agent can deal is wages; and the bargaining agent did in fact deal with wages in the manner set out in appendix ‘A’. When the company claims that each employee's salary was arrived at “following negotiations” it will have to show that these negotiations were authorized by the terms of the collective agreement and this it cannot do for the reason that the agreement does not authorise negotiations to be conducted between the company and the bargaining agent for the worker for the purpose of fixing salaries of individual employees.

17 It was contended by the Solicitor for the claimants that the right to fix individual salaries belonged solely to the company and in support of this submission he relied on article IV-(a) of the collective agreement. This article insofar as it is material reads:–

“ IV Management Clause (a) The management and operation of the company and the assignment and direction of its employees, including but not limited to the establishment of working conditions, the control of all operations and activities, the assignment of work to employees or to contractors, the hiring, promoting, demoting, rehiring, suspension, discharging and disciplining of employees for just cause, and the laying-off and calling to work of employees in connection with any reduction or increase of personnel are the exclusive functions of management except as they may be specifically limited by the terms of this agreement………….”

18 This provision clearly puts the management and operation of the company including “the establishment of working conditions”, and the promotion, demotion, etc. of employees in the hands of management. In our view the expression “establishment of working conditions” must include the fixing of salaries of employees; and so, the company clearly has the right to fix individual salaries for its employees except insofar as such a course might be limited by the terms of the collective agreement. The collective agreement limited the authority of management in relation to wages by fixing the minimum and maximum salaries of employees within the classification set out in appendix >A' but did nothing more as regards wages; so in our view the company was not only at liberty to fix, but was bound to fix wages of individual employees under article IV-(a) or the agreement. The conclusion that it was the sole right and duty of the...