Chung's Esso Servicenter v Dockers and Marine Workers Union

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Martin, C.,Holness, R.,White, R.
• Judgment Date: 30 March 1976
• Court: Industrial Dispute Tribunal (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: IDT 24 of 1975
• Date: 30 March 1976

Industrial Dispute Tribunal

Martin, C.; Holness, R.; White, R.

IDT 24 of 1975

Chung's Esso Servicenter

and

Dockers and Marine Workers Union

Labour Law - Termination of Employment — Dismissal

REFERENCE:

1 The Honourable Minister of Labour & Employment by letter dated 27 ^th November, 1975 in accordance with section 9(3)(a) of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act 1975, referred to the Tribunal for settlement, an industrial dispute between Chung's Esso Servicenter and the Dockers and Marine Workers Union.

2 The Terms of reference to the Tribunal were as follows:–

“To determine and settle the dispute between Norman Chung's Esso Servicenter on the one hand, and certain employees of the Servicenter represented by the Dockers and Marine Workers Union on the other hand, over the dismissal of Mr. Paul Spence.”

3 The division of the Tribunal selected in accordance with section 3(2) of the Act to hear the dispute was as follows –

Dr. John Martin	—	Chairman
Mr. Noel Holness	—	Employers' Representative
Mr. Darrel White	—	Workers' Representative

PARTIES:

4 Chung's Esso Servicenter was represented by –

Mr. Norman Chung

Mr. C.T. Lewis

5 The Trade Union was represented by –

Mr. Milton Scott

SUBMISSIONS AND SITTING

6 After submitting briefs, the parties made oral submissions during a hearing which was conducted on Tuesday, 9 ^th March, 1976, commencing at 10:45 a.m.

7 The Union contented that the Joint Industrial Council for the Petrol Trade took the decision that Mr. N. Chung, proprietor of Chung's Esso Service Station, 29 Dominica Drive, New Kingston, and the employer of Mr. Paul Spence, should send him to be medically examined, and agreed that if the medical diagnosis proved that Mr. Spence was epileptic there would be no disagreement regarding his dismissal. The Union further submitted that Mr. Chung ignored the decision of the Joint Industrial Council, as a result the matter was submitted to the Tribunal.

8 Mr. Chung in defence, said that he did not send Mr. Spence to be medically examined as he thought that a doctor could not properly diagnose a case of fits after the victim had recovered from the attack.

9 The Tribunal pointed out to Mr. Chung that his assumptions were completely false and he agreed to carry out the decision of the Joint Industrial Council.

AWARD

10 Dr. V. O. Williams neurologist specialist examined Mr. Paul Spence on March 15, 1976, and found him to be epileptic (Appendix A). In the light of this, the Tribunal finds that Mr. Spence was justifiably dismissed.

DATED THIS 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 1976.

Sgd...