Carib Pipe Company Ltd v Union of Clerical, Administrative and Supervisory Employees
Industrial Disputes Tribunal
No. 11 of 1978
Labour law - Industrial disputes — Wage increases.
Labour law - Industrial disputes — Improved fringe benefits.
REFERENCE: By letter dated 23rd February, 1978, the Honourable Minister of Labour, in accordance with section 11 of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act, 1975 referred to the tribunal for settlement, a dispute between the company and the union.
The terms of reference to the tribunal were as follows:
“To determine and settle the dispute between Carib Pipe Company Limited on the one hand and certain categories of employees, employed by the company and represented by the Union of Clerical, Administrative and Supervisory Employees on the other hand, over the union's claim for increased wages and improved fringe benefits on behalf of the said workers.”
The division of the tribunal selected in accordance with section 8(2) of the Act was –
Mr. Nathan Richards — Chairman
Mr. Noel Escoffery — Member
Mr. Edward Dixon — Member
The company was represented by –
Mr. N. McDonald
Mr. Garth Smith
The union was represented by –
Mr. Fred Clarke
Submissions and Sittings
The dispute concerns a claim in a letter dated 15th June, 1977, that was served on Carib Pipe Company Limited by the Union of Clerical, Administrative and Supervisory Employees on the behalf of a bargaining unit, comprising of certain categories of workers employed by the company and represented by the said union.
During the negotiations, subsequent to the receipt of the letter of claims by the company, all the items, to the exclusion of wages were settled.
Considering that further negotiations on the matter would be useless, the parties agreed that the item of wages should be referred to the tribunal for its decision.
The categories of workers on whose behalf the claim is made are: Foremen, Telephone Operators, Drivers, Clerks, Machinists, Store Assistants, Cook, Office Maids and Electricians.
The Tribunal completed its hearing at one sitting on the 12th June 1978.
Both the union and the company endeavoured to substantiate their arguments by presenting verbal as well as documentary evidence at the reference.
The union, in support of its claim, contended that the aggrieved categories of...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL