Shell Company (W.I.) Ltd v National Workers Union

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Lynch, C.
• Judgment Date: 11 October 1977
• Date: 11 October 1977
• Court: Industrial Dispute Tribunal (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: No. 28 of 1977

Industrial Disputes Tribunal

Lynch, C.

No. 28 of 1977

Shell Company (W.I.) Ltd.

and

National Workers Union

Labour law - Industrial disputes — Wage increases.

Labour law - Industrial disputes — Improved fringe benefits.

1 Reference:

2 The Honourable Minister of Labour, by letter dated 17 ^th August 1977 in accordance with Section 9 of Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act, 1975 referred to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal for settlement, an industrial dispute between The Company and The Union.

3 The Terms of Reference to the Tribunal are as follows:

“To determine and settle the dispute between The Shell (W.I.) Company on the one hand, and the monthly paid employees of the Company represented by the National Workers Union on the other hand, with respect to the claim of the Union dated November 8, 1976, served on the Company for the increased wages and improved fringe benefits on behalf of the said monthly paid employees.”

4 The division of the Tribunal selected in accordance with Section 8(2) of the Act was –

Mr. Basil Lynch	—	Chairman
Mr. Gerald Groves	—	Employers' Representative
Mr. Edward Dixon	—	Workers' Representative

5 The Company was represented by –

Mr. Howard Hamilton

Mr. Roy Robotham

Mr. Frank Lopez

6 The Trade Union was represented by–

Mr. Lascelles Perry

Mr. W. Buchannan

Mr. L. McKenzie

Several Worker/Delegates

Submissions and Sittings

7 Written briefs were submitted by the parties and oral submissions made at four sittings held on the 22nd, 24th and 31st August and the 21st September 1977.

8 The Company and the Union were parties to a Collective Labour Agreement covering the period 1st January 1975 to 31st December 1976 and by letter dated 8 ^th November 1976, the Union served a Twelve- point Claim on the Company for increased wages and improved working conditions.

9 During the hearings, six of these claims were withdrawn, primarily for further discussions at the local level, leaving the remaining six for determination the Tribunal.

10 The Claims withdrawn were–

No. 6- Meal Allowance

No. 7- Medical Scheme

No. 9- Sick Leave

No.10-Study Leave

No.11- Local Travelling

No.12- Pensions

11 The Claims for determination by the Tribunal and its award in each case are set out below–

No. 1- Duration of Contract

12 The Union is seeking a one-year contract — the Company would prefer a two-year contract, “possibly with a wage reopener clause after the expiration of one year.”

13 The Tribunal awards a one-year contract commencing from 1st January 1977.

No. 2- Wages

14 The members of the bargaining unit comprises–

Grades	Wages
Ungraded Clerk	$767.53 per month
Accounting Machine Operator I	$613.94 per month
Clerk I	$560.50 per month
Accounting Machine Operator II	$479.36 per month
Clerks II and Stenographers II	$427.10 per month

15 The Union sought a 38% across-the-board increase ranging from a high of $67.33 per week in the case of ungraded Clerk to a low of $37.55 per week in the of Clerk II and Stenographers II.

16 As regards prior negotiations, the following extract is quoted verbatim from the Company's brief submitted to the Tribunal–

“Negotiations between the National Workers Union representing certain clerical workers and the Company had been in progress since January 1977, but the N.W.U. failed to accept the Company's offer in relation to salaries of $10.00 per week which was proposed in the context of the Government's Wage Guidelines as tabled in Ministry Paper No. 12. Conciliatory efforts were made by the Ministry of Labour on the 11/8/77, without success and the workers went on strike at the opening of business on 12/8/77.

The Minister of Labour summoned both parties to meetings at the Sheraton Hotel on the 15th and 16th August 1977, and after thorough examination of the facts and figures as called for in the Ministry Paper No. 12 1 (a)(b)(c)(d) the Company maintained its stand that they could not increase the offer of $10.00 per week, as any amount in excess of this figure, would incur penalties from the Commissioner of...