On his return to work from leave on January 11th, 2021, Gary Smith Personnel Manager of PMC based in Port of Spain knew that he would be forced to make an urgent decision. He had visited the company for a short while on Friday January 8th, 2021, when the general manager Mr. Brewster informed him that he had suspended Mr. Timothy James a production worker and shop steward, for the remainder of that day for refusing to comply with the managerial request. After officially discussing the incident with Mr. Brewster and other members off the management team at PMC, Mr. Smith invited Timothy to explain the circumstances surrounding his suspension. Not only had Timothy refused to comment but the President of the local union Mr. Francis who accompanied Timothy, informed Mr. Smith that the issue had been referred to the National Workers Union. Mr. Smith referred James to section 4 of the Code of Discipline (see exhibits I-III for selected articles from the Collective Agreement) and informed Timothy that his suspension would remain effective until the circumstances were investigated. Mr. Smith wanted to have this issue settled quickly. Yet he wanted to be sure that he could defend any action taken by the company. He wrote the Union the following day briefly explaining the circumstances of Timothy's suspension and requested a meeting. GENERAL COMPANY BACKGROUND PMC was a public company registered in 1959. It commenced operations in September 1961 that manufactured a select range of products sold on the local market. The company had a generally high public profile both in terms of the quality of its products and their popularity with consumers and its level of involvement in and support of community activities. In 1987 PMC employed 110 persons 25 of whom constituted the clerical administrative and professional staff 85 workers were employed in the three sections of its production department. Relations with the workers and their union had been generally cordial. The company concluded its first collective agreement with the union in 1970. THE CONVERSION DEPARTMENT The conversion department received and processed the raw material for the final product. Because of the nature of the company's product a high premium was placed on the maintenance of hygienic conditions in this and other departments. Twenty-two employees worked on a three-shift system in the conversion department. The standard shifts will 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM and 3:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. There was a Superintendent assisted by shift supervisors, shift assistants' supervisors and shift relief supervisors in different areas of the conversion department. Two operators also worked each of the three shifts. The activities performed in this department were critical to the quality of the final product. At the lowest level of the production line the roar materials were received in bulk and fed into a bin from which it is fed through a conveyor belt into the boiler section of the plant for processing. The semifinished product pass through different stages before final packaging. THE INCIDENT - SUSPENSION OF TIMOTHY JAMES Timothy James worked at the beginning of the production line in the raw material handling section of the department. He joined the company in 1969 as a casual worker in the packaging department. In 1972 he was transferred to the Conversion department. In December 1972 he was warned for sleeping on the job. In February 1973 he was given a raise in pay on the satisfactory completion of training. Nothing extraordinary seemed to have characterized his work history up until 1984 when he received the company's 15-year award. The conferral of such award meant that Timothy no longer had to clock in or out. As part of their normal routine duties' operators were required to keep the area around the bin free from extraneous matter. Each operator was required to perform that duty once every six weeks for a week. On Friday January 8th, 1988, Leroy Drakes the shift supervisor on Timothy's shift noticed that there was extraneous matter around the bin. Drakes twice drew the above to his attention. When Timothy refused to comply the shift, supervisor drew the matter to the attention of the Departmental Superintendent Mr. Edward Jacobs. The latter requested Timothy to perform the function, but he again refused. Jacobs then reported the incident to St. Clair Brewster who as acting general manager was also a Company director and plant manager. Mr Brewster in the presence of both Drakes and Jacobs instructed Timothy James that if he had no intention of performing the function, he would be suspended pending investigation. James was advised by Brewster to go home and return to work the following day. James complied. The personnel manager requested James to see him since he wanted to have the matter resolved before further conflict developed. Mr. Smith was aware that stocks of the company's products were low because of the heavy sales during the previous month. An interruption in production was therefore not in the company's best interests. EXHIBIT I PMC Code of Discipline S. 4 and 5 OFFENCE DISCIPLINARY ACTION 1 st Offence 2 nd Offence 3 rd Offence 4. Insubordination of Rudeness Suspension or Dismissal Dismissal 5. Wilful Disobedience of reasonable Instructions Suspension or Dismissal Dismissal EXHIBIT 2 PMC LIMITED MANAGEMENT'S RIGHTS CLAUSE 1. Employees are obligated to carry out the immediate supervisor's instructions. 2. The company offers employment and will pay for same on the understanding that a standard is produced in return for the wage paid. It is understood that a general duty of all is to produce the best possible products according to modern standards of hygiene and to offer utmost satisfaction to the general public. 3. The union recognizes the exclusive right of the company to organize conduct and manage operations to provide for efficiency and to perform other functions of management such as but not limited to the introduction of technical improvement to modify or cease operations, to designate the type of work and the manner in which it is to be accomplished provided however, that in the exercise of these rights this agreement is in no way violated and further provided that the union may at anytime raise any matter with management in the scope of this agreement. 4. The company has the right at the discretion of management to engage retrench promote demote transfer reprimand or suspend employees and to dismiss them for cause. The union will be informed of proposed or intended retrenchments. EXHIBIT III PMC LIMITED PROCEDURE FOR THE AVOIDANCE AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES 1. All requests complaints and differences must in the first instance be discussed with his or her immediate supervisor by the worker immediately concerned. 2. After the procedure laid down in paragraph one above has been carried out and if no satisfactory settlement has been arrived at the delegate shall enter into discussion with a supervisor before any disciplinary action is carried out. 3. Failing settlement under Paragraph 2 above, Management shall be contacted and will investigate the problem in consultation with the worker, the Supervisor and delegates. 4. Failing settlement under Paragraph 3 above deputations of workers who may be accompanied by an Officer of the Trade Union shall be received by the Employer without unreasonable delay, for the mutual discussion of any question in the settlement of which both parties are concerned. 5. Failing settlement under the above paragraph, it shall be competent for either party to bring the question before joint conference to be held between the company and the trade union. Such a joint conference shall be held within seven working days unless otherwise mutually agreed upon, from the receipt of the application by the Secretary of the Company or the Secretary of the Trade Union. 6. Failing settlement under paragraph 5 above either side may request the employer's confederation to convene a joint conference to further discuss the matters in dispute. 7. Failing settlement at a joint conference under the above paragraph of any question brought before it, it shall be competent for either party to refer the question to the Chief Labour Officer for Conciliation.

1. Applying your knowledge of Industrial Relations analyze the behavior of the company and its representatives and Mr. James and the union commenting on the correctness or otherwise of the actions.

2. What solutions would you recommend to resolve the dispute give, reasons for your answer

3. What steps would you recommend avoiding a recurrence of the problem.