Jamaica Milk Products Ltd v National Workers Union

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Martin, C.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1978
• Date: 01 January 1978
• Court: Industrial Dispute Tribunal (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: No. 26 of 1977

Industrial Disputes Tribunal

Martin, C.

No. 26 of 1977

Jamaica Milk Products Ltd.

and

National Workers Union

Labour law - Termination of employment — Wage Increases.

Labour law - Termination of employment — Improved Conditions of Employment.

REFERENCE:

1 By letter dated 9th August, 1977, the Honourable Minister of Labour in accordance with section 9, subsection 3(a) of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act 1975, referred to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal for settlement, a dispute between the employer and the union.

2 The terms of reference to the tribunal were as follows:

“To determine and settle the dispute between the Jamaica Milk Products Limited on the one hand, and the National Workers Union on the other hand, over the dismissal of Mr. Truman Cameron, formerly employed by the said company.”

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

Dr. John Martin — Chairman

Mr. Noel Escoffery — Employers' representative

Mr. Edward Dixon — Workers' representative

4 The company was represented by:

Mr. Emil George, Q.C., (legal)

Mr. Edward Ashenheim (legal)

Mr. James Rawle

Mr. Derval Graham

Mr. Basil Wright

5 The union was represented by:

Miss A. Tapper (legal)

Mr. V. Morrison

Worker/Delegates

6 Submissions and Sittings

7 The parties submitted written briefs and made oral submissions at seven (7) sittings of the tribunal held between the 10th February, 1978 and the 6th November, 1978.

8 Background to the dispute

9 The dispute arose out of the employer's dismissal of Mr. Truman Cameron by letter dated 3rd June, 197?, from his employment at the Bybrook Condensery in Bog Walk, St. Catherine.

10 It was alleged by the employer that on the 28th May, 19'77, Mr. Truman Cameron was seen in the act of handing a parcel over the fence of its premises to somebody outside the factory compound. The allegation further states that the parcel was retrieved by members of the employer's security personnel and found to contain cans of sweetened condensed milk, which were the property of the employer and which Cameron had no authorisation to have in his possession or to deliver to anyone.

11 The employer concluded and led evidence to prove that the investigations carried out by its officers showed that Mr. Cameron was guilty of stealing the company's products and was therefore justifiably dismissed.

12 The union denied the employer's allegation...