Alumina Partners of Jamaica v National Workers Union

JurisdictionJamaica
JudgeLynch, C.
Judgment Date26 May 1978
Date26 May 1978
CourtIndustrial Dispute Tribunal (Jamaica)
Docket Number48 of 1977

Industrial Disputes Tribunal

Lynch, C.

48 of 1977

Alumina Partners of Jamaica
and
National Workers Union

Labour law - Termination of employment — Dismissal.

JUDGMENT:
1

The Honourable Minister of Labour, by letter dated 2nd November, 1977 and in accordance with section 11 of: the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act, referred to the Industrial

‘Disputes Tribunal for settlement the dispute between Alumina Partners of Jamaica and the National Workers Union.

2

The terms of reference to the tribunal were as follows:

“To determine and settle the dispute between Alumina Partners of Jamaica on the one hand and the National Workers Union on the other hand over the dismissal of Mr. Malachi Atkinson.”

3

The division of the tribunal selected in accordance with section 8(2) of the Act was:

Mr. Basil Lynch — Chairman

Mr. Owen Plant — Employers' Representative

Mr. Dorrel White — Workers' Representative

4

The company was represented by:

Mr. P. H. Williams Q.C. (Legal)

Mr. P. Bynoe

Mr. O. Simpson

5

The union was represented by:

Mr. D. Buchanan — Organizer

Mr. H. Nelson — Chief Delegate

Mr. D. Panton

Mr. C. Lewis

Mr. L. Rochester

6

Written briefs were submitted by the parties and oral submissions made at three (3) siftings held on the 9th March, 3rd April and 13th April, 1978.

7

The dispute arose out of an altercation between Mr. Randolph Chin, Supervisor employed to Alpart at Port Kaiser and Mr. Malachi Atkinson also employed at Alpart at Port Raiser which resulted in the dismissal of Mr. Atkinson with effect from 24th March, 1977.

8

The company, through its representatives, clamed that –

“On the 10th March, 1977, Mr. Malachi Atkinson unlawfully assaulted his supervisor, Mr. Randolph Chin. As a result of this assault and in accordance with the provisions of the collective labour agreement between the parties, Mr. Atkinson was dismissed.”

9

The Union, through its representatives, submitted that –

“The facts are that supervisor Chin, by his denial to Atkinson of lunch tickets to which he was entitled and further provocative statements to Atkinson, caused a fight between the two.”

10

The evidence made available to the Tribunal:

  • (a) supports the plea of ‘provocation’ by the supervisor and the claim that he placed the worker in a humiliating position;

  • (b) indicated that the worker was not the sole aggressor and

  • (c) discloses that the company, after due enquiry, suspended....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT