Ministry of Health & The Ministry of Finance & Planning v The Industrial Disputes Tribunal et Al

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: ANDERSON J.
• Judgment Date: 08 July 2004
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] 7 JJC 0801
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 08 July 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

CLAIM NO: HCV 1840 OF 2003

BETWEEN

THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH

APPLICANT

THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND PLANNING

APPLICANT

AND

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES TRIBUNA }

RESPONDENT

THE JUNIOR DOCTORS' ASSOCIATION }

RESPONDENT

DR. COLLIN GRAHAM }

RESPONDENT

DR. AYE THWYN }

RESPONDENT

DR. PATRICK TOPPIN }

RESPONDENT

^{nd th th}

JUDICIAL REVIEW - Prerogative Orders and Declaration sought - Meaning of "industrial dispute" - Whether Industrial Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine claim pertaining to hours of work - Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act, s. 12(7)

ANDERSON J

1 This is an application by certain ministries of Government, ("The Government") for a declaration and prerogative orders. It originated in a threat of industrial action by the members of the Junior Doctors' Association, at least in partial response to certain proposals by the Government, (as well as by the Association itself), as to the conditions of service of members of the Association.

2 There is no dispute as to the factual history of this matter and how it got here from there. I will accordingly start with the order made by Daye J. on the 8th October 2003. On that day the learned judge granted leave to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance & Planning to apply to the Judicial Review court for the following:

• (a) A Declaration that the Industrial Disputes Tribunal ("IDT") does not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim by the Junior Doctors' Association (hereinafter "JDA") pertaining to their hours of work, that is to say, that their hours of work are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

• (b) An Order of Prohibition to prevent the Industrial Disputes Tribunal from hearing the claim made by the Junior Doctors' Association for and on behalf of the Junior Doctors that their hours of work are from 8:00 am to 4:00 p.m.

• (c) An Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Industrial Dispute Tribunal to hear and settle the claim made by the Junior Doctors' Association for and on behalf of the Junior Doctors that their hours of work are from 8 :00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

3 Mr. Foster, instructed by the Director of State Proceedings on behalf of the applicants, contended that the IDT had erred in law and/or exceeded its jurisdiction when it determined that it could hear and settle the claim in question. He submitted further that the issue before this court had already been determined in the case of The Junior Doctors' Association et al v The Ministry of Health, Ministry of the Public Service, University Hospital of the West Indies and the Attorney General of Jamaica reported at [1990] 27 J.L.R. 148. In that case the JDA sought a declaration that "the normal working hours of all doctors represented by the Association were 40 hours exclusive of meal-time subject to a working day of 8 hours exclusive of meal times and that they were entitled to overtime outside of those hours". The late Clarke J, who heard the matter, held that they were not entitled to such a declaration. He based his decision upon an examination of the relevant agreements. Public Service Regulations, Staff Orders and other orders issued by the Minister of Finance and other documents. Mr. Foster submitted that this was the identical issue over which the IDT now sought to exercise jurisdiction and in his submission, it was not competent for an inferior tribunal to reopen an issue that had already been determined by a superior court

4 He further submitted that the IDT's remit under the provisions of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act ("LRIDA") was "to deal with industrial disputes which relate to terms and conditions of employment". Further that this remit is limited to circumstances "where there are existing terms and conditions which have given rise to a dispute as to future terms and conditions. The IDT has no power to impose terms and conditions on contracting parties in relation to matters which do not form part of the contract and for which a superior court has adjudicated on, to that effect." According to this view an administrative decision to put in place a new regime of working...