A Summary of the Case

Ashby, M.

1

This is a trade dispute between the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union ("the Union") and Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission ("the Commission"). The Commission is a statutory corporation established under and by virtue of the provisions of the Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission Act Chapter 54:70 of the Laws of Trinidad and Tobago and is engaged in the transmission and distribution of electricity. The Union is the recognized majority union for the bargaining unit of the seven workers whose employment was suspended without pay for one month by identically-worded letters that read as follows:

"October 14th, 1998

Mr. Herbert Peters

Chairman

91 05 141

SUSPENSION NOTICE

DISTRIBUTION CENTRAL

Dear Mr. Peters,

I refer to the meeting held with you on Monday 12th October, 1998, in the presence of your Union Representatives to discuss your participation in the invasion of the office of the Senior Area Engineer - Mr. Felix Alleyne, on the morning of Thursday 08th, October 1998, along with a number of other employees.

As indicated to you, such action disrupted the operations of the Commission and disturbed the running of the Main Office, including the section that deals with our customers.

As pointed out to you, this is a very serious matter which cannot be condoned by the commission.

As previously indicated to you, you are hereby suspended without pay for a period of one (1) month, with immediate effect.

Your suspension will run from October 13th, 1998 to November 12th, 1998 inclusive. You are expected to return to work on November 13th, 1998.

Yours faithfully

Sgd. Kenwin Chan Sing

AREA MANAGER"

2

The recipients of the letters and the workers concerned in the dispute are: Herbert Peters, Jinnah Mohammed, Sylvester Johnson, Andrew Alves, Saleem Dawud, Patrick James and Van Walcott (collectively "the suspended workers"). With the exception of James and Walcott, the suspended workers were all duly elected officials of the local branch of the Union established at the Commission's Central Distribution Area; Johnson was Branch Vice-President, Mohammed Branch Secretary and Dawud a Committee Member while Peters and Alves were Shop Stewards.

3

The case for the Commission is summarized in the following paragraphs of its written statement of evidence and arguments:

• "5. The above-mentioned disciplinary action was taken against the seven (7) workers as a result of their gross misconduct on 8th October, 1998 in:
  • (a) marching into the Office Building along with some forty-three (43) other workers of the Area through the location that deals with the Commission's customers;
  • (b) and thereafter up to the main office area where the Area Manager's Office and those of the Senior Engineers and other Engineers are located;
  • (c) thereby disrupting the operations of the Commission and disturbing the running of the Main Office.
• 6. At 4:05 p.m. on 7th October, 1998, the Union Branch and/or the Workers aforesaid held a meeting in the Commission employees' car park. At this meeting the Branch announced that Branch Officers together with employees of the Area would be marching up to the Area Manager's Office on the following day to discuss problems affecting the Area and to seek an apology from Ronald Deonarine, Senior Area Engineer.
• 7. At approximately 7:20 a.m. the following morning, 8th October, 1998, approximately fifty (50) workers led by Union Officers and/or the 7 workers aforementioned entered the building in the area where the Commission services its customers, singing and clapping loudly. The throng proceeded up to the first floor where the Management offices and main office are located, still singing and shouting "Deonarine must go":
• 8. The band of workers invaded the office of the Senior Area Engineer and made several demands and/or engaged in behaviour which was intimidatory of other employees.
• 9. The 7 workers named hereinabove were the principal actors instrumental in marching through the Central Area Office Building and invading the Senior Area Engineer's Office.
• 10. None of the workers who participated in the event of the 8th October, 1998 obtained prior permission from their Head of Department to remain on the compound instead of going out on their day's assignments. As a result of the foregoing the Commission's operations were seriously disrupted for approximately one (1) hour."

4

For the Commission, oral evidence was led through three witnesses: Felix Alleyne, Senior Area Engineer (Administration, Commercial and Development) and Estate Constables Steve Waterman and Martin Pascal. The Union called two of the suspended workers, Branch Vice-President Sylvester Johnson and Shop Steward Andrew Alves, as witnesses.

5

It was common ground that the local branch of the Union at the Commission's Central Distribution Area took a decision on October 7, 1998 that workers and their Union officials would go to Area Manager Kenwin Chan Sing at 7:00 a.m. (the scheduled start of the work-day) at his office at the Commission's premises at Point Lisas, Couva. At some time between 7:10 a.m. and 7:20 a.m. on October 8, 1998, approximately fifty workers, led by Union branch officials, entered the Commission's office building on the ground floor and went up the stairs to the next floor where the offices of various managers are located, including those of Area Manager Chan Sing and Senior Area Engineers Felix Alleyne and Ronald Deonarine. The workers knocked on the open door of Alleyne's office and enquired as to the whereabouts of Chan Sing and Deonarine. Informed that they were not in their offices, Branch Vice-President Johnson asked to speak to Alleyne about a number of complaints of the workers. Some fifteen workers (including union officials) then entered Alleyne's office which measured twelve feet by ten feet. Alleyne complained that the number of workers was too great to be accommodated in the space but Johnson proceeded to outline the workers' complaints. Alleyne estimated the length of the meeting at more than half an hour whereas Alves put it at ten minutes. During the meeting Alleyne took written notes and at the end promised to "refer the complaints and get back to the Union". Alleyne confirmed, under cross-examination that "all the concerns raised by Mr. Johnson were concerns in relation to the work of the workers". It was recalled by the Union's Johnson and Alves as well as the Commission's Alleyne that Alleyne sought from and was given by Johnson the assurance that work would not be stopped.

6

Many of the workers perform their duties not at the Commission's premises but out in the field, conveyed to their assigned job sites by the Commission's vehicles. They report to work at 7.00 a.m. and ordinarily, in the words of Johnson "wait around in the yard for the Senior Foremen and the engineers to organize the crews" which normally go out by 8.00 a.m.

7

Branch Vice-President Johnson, in his oral testimony, listed the workers' complaints and the outcome of earlier efforts to have them remedied. The complaints are set out in the Union's Statement of Evidence and Arguments as follows:

• (a) ASSIGNMENT OF TREE TRIMMERS TO GREASE ELECTRICAL POLES

Prior to June, 1998, greasing of electrical poles were (sic) performed by linesmen who were trained and experienced in that job function. However, in June, 1998, Tree trimmers who were classified as labourers and who were neither trained nor experienced in this type of work were instructed to perform that function. This matter was taken up with management on June 18th, June 30th, July 20th and October 2nd, 1998, and despite undertakings given on June 30th and July 20th to cease the practice, tree trimmers continued to be instructed to perform this function and on October 2nd 1998 Mr. Deonarine, Senior Area Engineer declared that he would continue and did continue to assign those duties to the tree trimmers.

• (b) DRINKING WATER

On June 30th, 1998, it was reported to the Area Manager, Mr. K. Changsingh (sic) that the drinking water provided for workers was unpalatable and in some cases even caused workers to become ill. As a result the tank which supplied drinking water was put out of commission, bottled water was provided whilst work was done on the tank to correct the situation. However, when the tank was put back in service the water tasted of paint. Reports in this regard were made on August 29th, August 31st, September 15th, October 2nd, and 5th but no remedial action was taken.

• (c) ROTTEN POLES
• It had been the practice that crews who were required to carry out work on rotten poles would be informed of the condition of such poles. In early June, 1998, workers were sent to work on rotten poles without their being informed of their condition. This was reported to the Commission on June 13th, July 20th, October 2nd and 5th, but the Commission continued to withhold such information from the workers.
• (d) Besides the above workers reported to the said Branch meeting that they were required to work with three defective bucket trucks which placed workers in danger. As well workers were sent to work on poles which were infected (sic) with bees without being informed of this hazard."

8

At the periphery of the common ground shared by the parties there were differences in the evidence they presented to the Court. Alleyne agreed that Johnson "listed six items - what he called 'burning issues, safety issues". He recalled the workers' complaints set out above with the exception of the complaint about drinking water. Of the Commission's witnesses E.C. Steve Waterman testified solely about the meeting of workers and union officials held on October 7th 1998 at which the decision was taken that resulted in the workers entering the building on the following day. E.C. Martin Pascal was present in the corridor outside Alleyne's office on the morning of the 8th and heard the workers singing as they entered and as they left the office building. Alleyne testified that there was singing and clapping by the workers and that they shouted the slogan "Deonarine must go!" Alleyne's account was replete with subjective characterizations of the workers' conduct such as:

• - in admitting that he took notes, Alleyne said: "He [Johnson] allowed me to write while he spoke".
• - speaking of Johnson, Alleyne said, "I was very subservient on that morning. I was at his beck and call."
• - About the number of workers in his office, Alleyne described his feelings thus: "I was very unsettled so many workmen in my office. I felt like sort of imprisoned in my office."

9

There was, however, one vignette that vividly conveyed the discomfort Alleyne must have felt. He was conscious of the presence of the suspended worker Herbert Peters "towering over" him and found that he "was particularly on the offensive" verbally. His recollection of Peters speaking was as follows:

"Q. Tell us, Mr. Alleyne, if you remember, the things that Mr. Peters said.

A. 'You, Mr. Alleyne, you doing a lot of damn dotishness here. You give me a letter the other day, now you talking about giving me another one. Like you don't know what you are doing.' At the same time he was gesticulating at me - pointing."

10

For their part, Johnson and Alves denied that there was singing, clapping or the shouting of slogans but Alves said : "I thought I heard, in the background, a worker say 'Deonarine must go."

11

The determination of this trade dispute turns on two issues:

• (1) the fundamental issue of fact - whether or not, on the evidence before the Court, the Commission's allegations of misconduct were substantiated and the suspensions imposed were justified;
• (2) the issue of law and good industrial relations practice - whether and in what manner the employer may take disciplinary action against a worker for misconduct committed while he is acting in his capacity as a trade union official.

12

To deal firstly with the issue of fact, the Commission imposed one-month suspensions as the sanction warranted by the workers' "gross misconduct" in entering the office building and the office of Felix Alleyne and acting while there in the manner alleged and also by their "disruption" of its operations.

13

The workers were alleged to have disrupted the service provided to the Commission's customers in its offices. The evidence disclosed that those offices are open to the public at 8:00 a.m. Even by the estimate of the Commission's Alleyne the workers had dispersed and left the building by that time so that they could not have disrupted an operation that had not started. Even the Commission's staff who served the public and were required to report for work at 7:45 a.m. are unlikely to have been inconvenienced if one accepts Johnson's estimate of 7:35 a.m. as the time when workers began to leave in the Commission's trucks to carry out their assigned duties in the field (this in contradiction of Alleyne's estimate of 8:00 am. as the time the workers left the office building).

14

The Commission's work was also allegedly disrupted in that the departure of its crews for work in the field was delayed for about one hour as a result of the fifty or so workers entering the office building and meeting with Alleyne. The only evidence from the Commission in this regard was a statement by Alleyne to the effect that the crews left late. He was unable to provide particulars and admitted that he had no "personal knowledge about what time the crews left that day".

15

For their part, the uncontroverted testimony of Johnson and Alves was that neither was required to work away from the Commission's compound Johnson (a Line Foreman) because "On the 8th they took the men from my crew and made small crews because there was a great demand [for disconnection and connection work]"; in the case of Alves, as a Lead Hand Mechanic, he worked on vehicles on the compound.

16

The Commission's ground of "gross misconduct' was based on the workers' entering and leaving the building and, more specifically, Alleyne's office and their alleged clapping, singing, shouting and intimidatory behaviour. While there is conflicting evidence from the parties on these matters, this Court is satisfied that there was clapping, singing and shouting as alleged because we find it implausible that workers would plan to approach management en masse to demand resolution of their grievances and, when fifty of them are gathered, carry out their plan with the silence of Trappist monks. Having said that, we do not accept that, in the circumstances of this case, such action on the part of the workers necessarily justifies disciplinary action of the order of a one-month suspension without pay.

17

There was evidence before the Court to indicate that the tone and atmosphere of the meeting in Alleyne's office were not as hostile as he suggested in his evidence-in-chief. Under cross-examination, he made the following admission.

"Q. Now, you took notes on that occasion?

A. Yes, Sir

Q. Of your own free will, is that not so?

A. Yes."

18

He also admitted that throughout the meeting he was seated at his desk and that a colleague Sayoon Mohammed (Engineer I) came into the office while the meeting was in progress and remained there until it ended.

19

A further indication of the spirit and tone of the meeting is found in the uncontroverted testimony of Johnson and Alves that, as they were walking out of his office, Alleyne called them back, saying that he wanted to make sure that he had everything correct.

20

In making reference to the circumstances of this case, we take note of the evidence led by the Union of its many complaints and representations to the Commission concerning the workers' safety and the claim that responses were tardy, inadequate or nonexistent. The Commission did not deny that the complaints had been made nor did it lead any evidence in rebuttal of the Union's claim. It chose rather to rely on the argument that, since the matters complained of had already been reported under the Grievance Procedure and had reached Stage Two (Union Representative and Commission Departmental Head), the Union was under an obligation to have the matters referred to Stage Three (at which the Local Branch or Area Representative of the Union complains in writing to Commission's Human Resources Manager). The Commission sought to censure the Local Branch for, in effect, going backward in the grievance procedure. We have great difficulty in accepting the proposition that when workers make new complaints of the same kind as matters already reported under the Grievance Procedure but not yet remedied, the Local Branch ought to be constrained in the manner contended for by the Commission. If, for instance, worker A makes a complaint about a defective vehicle during a given week and it is reported under the Grievance Procedure to the Area Management, what is the Local Branch to do when worker B makes the same complaint two weeks later or, for that matter, the same complaint about the same vehicle later on the same day? It cannot reasonably be suggested that such complaints can only be referred to the remote Human Resources Manager, merely because the complaint of worker A has not been resolved and has been taken past the first stage. In weighing the alleged misconduct, therefore, the Court is minded to give consideration to the effect that a long list of repeated occasions for complaint about the same matters could be expected to have on the workers.

21

We cannot allow the alleged conduct of Herbert Peters to go unremarked. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Union elected not to call him as a witness as this would have afforded an opportunity for more thorough scrutiny of his alleged conduct while in Alleyne's office. If Alleyne's account of his words and gestures is accurate, such conduct is to be censured for two reasons. In the first place, the uncivil language and gestures attributed to him have no place in the interaction between representatives of union and management. Secondly, if as is reported, he (while acting as a union representative) pursued his own grievance concerning a letter he received, he would have committed a gross violation of good industrial relations practice which abhors an union official representing himself on a personal grievance in his official capacity while treating with the employer.

22

In T.D. Nos. 63, 64 and 65 of 1999 N.U.G.F.W. v. Trinidad and Tobago Forest Product Company Limited (L.D. Elcock, A. Aberdeen) delivered on March 16, 2001, the employer suspended two workers on half pay for two weeks and one for three weeks for the part they played in an incident where some fifty to seventy workers who had not been paid their wages for eight weeks entered the company's administrative building and went to the upper floor demanding a meeting with the Financial Controller. In ordering that the suspensions be rescinded, the Court took into account the broad context in which the acts leading to the suspensions were committed:

"This is an appropriate juncture for us to express this Court's view that the entire issue of the guilt and punishment of these three workers must be considered in the larger context of all of the circumstances which gave rise to this dispute. It is not in dispute that the sixty to seventy workers had gathered in a relatively small space to confront Mr. Bowen, the Financial Controller, about some eight (8) weeks of unpaid wages and that they had all been angry and frustrated. The workers were complaining of the problems arising from the non-payment of the wages, including not having money to purchase groceries and other necessities for their homes, and having to spend money on transportation to get to jobs for which they were not being paid.

It seems to us that the Company has been oblivious to the fact that it had provoked the workers to the limits of their patience and endurance, and appears only to have been focused upon and sensitive to its own indignation at the workers' angry response to its fundamental breach of its contract of employment with them. It is clear to us from the evidence of the Company's and the Union's witnesses, that many or most or even all of the workers had been vociferously expressing their anger and frustration and making all sorts of wild remarks.........

Again we wish to emphasize that we do not, by any means, condone the intemperate behaviour displayed by these and the other workers, and must stress that they could and should have made their protest in an orderly manner. On the other hand, it is our opinion that a stern letter of rebuke and reprimand to each and every one of the 50 -70 workers would have sufficed, having regard to all of the attendant circumstances. Therefore, to deprive them of part of their wages as punishment for their angry reaction (albeit excessive) to the Company's wrongful failure to pay them their due wages in the first place, is in our opinion, not only bitterly ironic, but also excessively punitive, having regard to all the circumstances."

23

It is our opinion that the disciplinary action taken against the suspended workers was excessive as held in the case of N.U.G.F.W. v. Trinidad and Tobago Forest Products Company Limited. Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, therefore, we find and so hold that the Commission was not justified in suspending the employment of the workers without pay.

24

We turn now to the second issue to be determined in this case whether and how disciplinary action may be taken against workers when they are acting in their capacity as union officials. It is a question we propose to answer notwithstanding the fact that our determination of the issue of fact (supra) has for practical purposes disposed of the trade dispute.

25

The straight answer to the question posed is found in a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, Texaco Trinidad Inc. v. O.W.T.U. reported at 216 (1981) 34 W.I.R.. The Court of Appeal held "(irrespective of the terms of any collective agreement to which the company and the union were parties) that, in accordance with the principles and practice of good industrial relations, where a dispute arose between an employee acting as a union official and his employer in the course of his union activities, it was necessary to equate the status of the union official with that of the official of the employer with whom he was in contact and the proper course for the resolution of the dispute was for the employer to raise the issue with the union and not to take disciplinary action against the union official qua employee." We are bound by this ruling.

26

Attorney for the Commission sought to persuade this Court to recognize an exception to the standard set in the Texaco case by reliance on this Court's expressed disapproval of the remedy of self-help by parties to collective agreements in T.D. No.78 of 1977 T.T.E.C. v. O.W.T.U. (C.E. Bramble) delivered on July 21,1977 and also on E.S.D. No. 7 of 1981 Trinidad & Tobago External Telecommunications Company Ltd. v. C.W.U. (C. Riley-Hayes, B. Douglas) delivered on May 13, 1983, (' the Textel case') in which the Court upheld disciplinary action (a dismissal) taken against an union official (Branch Treasurer) for inducing fellow workers to engage in industrial action which is by definition illegal in the essential service in which she was employed. In order to find self-help in the instant case Attorney for the Commission argued that the action of the union officials must be considered as such when they insisted on a meeting with the Area management to discuss grievances "avoiding the grievance procedure and taking the law into [the Union's] own hands as opposed to following the remedies that were permitted by the collective agreement". In order to find illegal industrial action, he argued that the suspended workers took illegal industrial action in that they sought to compel the Commission's management to comply with the demands earlier made of them through the grievance procedure.

27

Our opinion of the Commission's arguments on the grievance procedure has been expressed above and it is sufficient here to state that we do not regard the workers' actions as constituting self-help in the manner contended for by the Commission. As for the claim made in the Commission's closing submissions that the workers had taken illegal industrial action, it appears to be something of an afterthought, as no mention of so serious an accusation is made in the letters of suspension. We return to one of our findings made earlier in this judgment to the effect that there was no evidence of a cessation of work by the suspended or any workers. On the contrary, Alleyne sought and got from Johnson the assurance that there would be no work stoppage. The importance of this fact is seen in C.7/76, C.8/76 & R. C. 2/76 R.J. Shannon and Company (Trinidad) Ltd. v. T.I.W.U. (J.A.M. Braithwaite, G.C. Awang, H. Johnson) delivered on 10th March, 1980 where, with respect to industrial action as it is defined in the Industrial Relations Act, Ch 88:01, the Court held:

"The definition tells us that for action to fall within the category of industrial action it must be for the purpose of Enforcing compliance with a demand; and that this demand need not be in relation to a trade dispute or to terms and conditions of employment ...

Regarding the mode of the action, the definition recognizes the strike and its counterpart, the lockout, as being the archetypal forms of industrial action. to these it adds "any action", including a number of specified types of action and excluding certain types of action. the examples given of action that is included as industrial action are all examples of the withdrawal of labour in whole or in part by workers acting in concert, contrary to the terms of their employment. the examples of exclusions similarly relate to withdrawal of labour which in the attendant circumstances would not be in breach of the terms of employment. these latter examples perhaps include as well, refusal by an employer to offer work in those circumstances.

The definition thus seems almost in terms to invoke the ejusdem generis rule. applying this rule, we conclude that for action to partake of the nature of industrial action it must either amount when taken by an employer to a refusal to employ in whole or in part and when taken against an employer to a withdrawal of labour in whole or in part by workers acting in concert; or, at the most, when taken by the employer be a denial of a right due to workers under their terms of employment and, when taken against the employer, a concerted refusal by workers to fulfil an obligation or duty due to the employer under their terms of employment. in other words, industrial action (which when not in conformity with the act constitutes an industrial relations offence) must be connected with the industrial relationship established between an employer and his workers by their terms and conditions of employment. a trade union or other organization can therefore take industrial action only by procuring a concerted breach of their terms of employment by workers. we reject the submission of the company that industrial action can consist of any action whatsoever taken against an employer to enforce compliance with a demand made upon him. all sorts of felonious actions can be resorted to for this purpose. one has heard, for example, of organizations in other parts of the world carrying on what is called "protection rackets". actions of this sort fall within another jurisdiction, and cannot constitute industrial action under the act."

(Emphasis added)

28

Accordingly, in the absence of the element illegal industrial action from the instant case, it is clearly distinguishable in one material respect from the Textel case in which dismissal of a Union official was upheld.

29

Its attorney argued that the Commission in its handling of the disciplinary action taken against the union officials had satisfied the requirements laid down in the Texaco case that the employer show due regard to the special status of a worker while he is acting in his capacity as an union official. Two letters to the Union at the level of its Executive were put into evidence in support of the claim. One of these is dated October 28, 1998 (two weeks after the suspensions) and turns down a request from the Union that the suspensions he rescinded. The other written on October 9, before the suspensions were imposed reads as follows:

1998 October 9

Mr. Errol Mc Leod

President General

Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

#99A Circular Road

SAN FERNANDO

Dear Mr. Mc Leod

I must inform you of an unsavory (sic) situation which took place at Distribution Central on Thursday, October 8, 1998 when a number of workers led by Union Branch Officials invaded the office of the Senior Engineer, Mr. F. Alleyne.

Such action transpired less than twenty-four (24) hours after the cordial meeting which you held with the General Manager, Executives and Management of the Commission on improving the relationship between the Commission's Management and your Union Officers.

The Commission's operations were seriously disrupted particularly in the Administration building where those Departments which service our customers are located. In addition, our field services to customers suffered serious delays by crews leaving the yard late.

Regrettably, I must advise you that disciplinary action will be taken against the workers identified in the invasion of the Senior Engineer's office.

Yours sincerely

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ELECTRICITY COMMISSION

Sgd. Patrick Lambert

Assistant General Manager Human Resources"

30

The above letter, more particularly the final paragraph, notifies the Union of the intention to take disciplinary action against an unspecified number of unnamed workers with no clear indication that union officials are included. After sending this letter to the Union, the Commission proceeded to suspend the seven workers, five of whom were union officials acting in their trade union capacity. The requirement laid down in the Texaco case goes beyond giving prior notification when disciplinary action is contemplated by the employer under such circumstances.

31

In the Texaco case Kelsick, J.A. wrote the lead opinion. In concurring with him Hyatali, C.J. made it clear that disciplinary action in cases of this kind is not a matter for the employer acting alone. In so doing he both lays down the standard and gives the justification for it:

"The real point is that irrespective of any lacuna, defect, or omission that might be said to exist in the collective agreement, on the right of the company to complain to the union on a matter reflecting on the conduct of a plenipotentiary of the union, the principles and practices of good industrial relations required that the particular misbehaviour of Lewis as a shop steward in this case should have been taken up and discussed with the union, before the company took disciplinary action against him. In this respect these principles were paramount and overrode the agreement itself.

The cases quoted by the company analysed by Kelsick J.A. in his judgment contained principles of interest and importance in industrial relations but, as I understand the court's decision on the facts of this case, with which I agree, it is only after the discussions recommended between the company and the union had yielded no satisfactory results that these principles were to be invoked and, if found relevant, applied. In the event, Lewis succeeds, and most regrettably in my view, in avoiding the disciplinary sanctions applied against him by the company; but it must be clearly understood that this is only so because it is essential to respect and implement a crucial and overriding industrial relations principle that is far more important than depriving Lewis of a fortnight's wages for his reprehensible and unpardonable misconduct."

32

The Commission's letters clearly fall short of the requirements of good industrial relations practice in cases where the taking of disciplinary action against a worker arises in a context where misconduct is alleged against him while he is acting in his capacity as a trade union official.

33

We find that the employment of the workers Herbert Peters, Jinnah Mohammed, Sylvester Johnson, Andrew Alves, Saleem Dawud, Patrick James and Van Walcott was suspended without pay in circumstances that were harsh and oppressive and not in accordance with good industrial relations practice.

34

Accordingly, it is the order of this Court that the suspensions of employment be rescinded and that all moneys foregone by workers as a result of the suspensions be paid to them as damages on or before March 31 2003.

35

It is further ordered that the Commission's and/or the workers' files not reflect the suspensions.

It is so ordered.

H.H Mrs. Gladys Gafoor

Vice President.

H.H Mr. V.E. Ashby

Member.