Radio Jamaica Ltd v National Workers Union

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Martin,Holness, R.,White, R.
• Judgment Date: 16 July 1976
• Court: Industrial Dispute Tribunal (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: IDT 27 of 1976
• Date: 16 July 1976

Industrial Dispute Tribunal

Martin, Holness, R.; White, R.

IDT 27 of 1976

Radio Jamaica Limited

and

National Workers Union

Labour Law - Collective Agreement — Terms of Employment

REFERENCE:

1 The Honourable Minister of Labour and employment by letter dated 14 ^th May, 1976, in accordance with section 11 of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act, 1975, referred to the Tribunal for settlement, an industrial dispute between Radio Jamaica and the National Workers Union.

2 The Terms of Reference to the Tribunal were as follows –

“To determine and settle the dispute between Radio Jamaica Limited and the unionized employees of the company represented by the National Workers Union, over the Union's claim for wage increases and fringe benefits.”

3 The division of the Tribunal selected in accordance with section 8(2) of the Act to hear the dispute was –

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

4 The Employer was represented by –

Mr. Peter Judah (Legal)

Mr. Lloyd DePasc

Mr. Winston Ridgard

Miss Janet Mowatt

5 The Trade Union was represented by –

Senator Carlyle Dunkley

Mr. Lascelles Perry

6 Worker/Delegates in attendance were –

Mr. Lester Hines

Mr. Uriel Bradford

Mr. Louis Morris

Miss Norma Brown

SUBMISSIONS AND SITTINGS

7 Written briefs were submitted by the parties and oral submissions were made on the 18 ^th June and 7 ^th July, 1976.

8 The Company and the Union in their first appearance before the Tribunal requested that they be allowed to go back to the local level in an attempt to arrive at a settlement.

9 On the 7 ^th July, 1976, both parties reported to the Tribunal that considerable progress had been made in the local level talks and common ground existed for a settlement on the majority of the claims.

10 THE UNION argued that — “There was a pre-wage guideline offer which was in effect legitimized by the final guidelines in Ministry Paper No. 12. However, following the invitation of the Tribunal we had another look at the matter and the Union pointed out certain cost of living and hardship consideration arising from factors such as NIS deduction, National Housing Trust deductions and felt that in those circumstances the pre-guidelines offer should be improved. Also Sir, the parties took into account that the final level of increase which we indicated would not have any adverse implications leading to the company a submission to their appropriate regulated body leading to the company losing any application for rates or increases because of the level of the settlement. These are some...