Industrial Court slams claim of bias

In a statement to the media yesterday, the Court says its President, Deborah Thomas- Felix, has stated and wishes to re-emphasise that in seeking to advance arguments on the workings and operations of the Industrial Court, critics must not seek to diminish the independence of the institution. It said the Court welcomes constructive criticism but cautions that boundaries between criticism and seeking to influence outcomes must not be blurred.

“One may disagree with some rulings of the Court, but to seek to impugn its impartiality or diminish the importance of its role and function will not be countenanced,” the Court said.

“We wish to remind the public that the Industrial Court is a superior court of record and has the powers to address any matter, issue or comment which it regards as contempt of court.” On Thursday’s Business Watch feature aired on CNC3, Kumar said there must be fairness on both sides.

“We do believe the Court has been against business and we see judgements that are coming down that really and truly we can’t understand the rationale behind it,” Kumar said.

“You would have a situation where someone was found stealing, the Industrial Court accepts that the person was stealing but says because this person has been working with you for a while you have to pay. We would really like that that matter is reviewed…well really and truly it’s a matter of looking at who is appointed to the Industrial Court and understanding it needs to be fair on both sides.” In response, the Court said the statistics, revealed by Thomas-Felix, in her opening address at the annual Meet with the Court Symposium on May 14 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, do not support Kumar’s claim.

“It is public information that for the period 2011 to 2015, 2,744 cases were determined by the Industrial Court of which only 34 judgements were appealed, 27 percent (747 matters) were disposed of by judgements through the adversarial process (and) of those 747 judgements, 230 (30 percent) were in favour of employers.

“In the Court’s conciliation (non-adversarial) process, 15.6 percent (427 matters) were disposed by conciliation, 19.6 percent (539) were disposed bilaterally and 24.9 percent (683 matters) were withdrawn.

“The matters withdrawn were withdrawn by unions when it was accepted that the disputes did not have any chance of success. In other words, the employer won.” The Court asserted that the total percentage of disputes resolved in favour of employers during the period 2011 to 2015 was 54.9 percent.

“In fulfilling its mandate, the Industrial Court is the only court within Trinidad and Tobago’s jurisdiction, according to court policy, that encourages bilateral discussions between parties and adjourns matters time and time again for parties to negotiate. The Court also offers conciliation to both parties at the very start of proceedings, before Case Management and often intervenes (before open court hearings) in a number of disputes when it appears that disputes are not well founded. Due to the pre-trial intervention of the Court, a number of disputes are settled and withdrawn. The Court will not support practices which are contrary to the principles of good industrial relations.”