Legal Terrorism at the Industrial Court

The opinions of Frank Mouttet and Derek Ali at the seminar hosted by the Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Commerce in Westmoorings were prejudicial and would only result in the undermining of the social legitimacy of the Industrial Court and by extension, the entire industrial relations machinery in our country.

As someone who represents both employers and trade unions, I tend to see this in a very impartial light.

There is no doubt that labour legislation in Trinbago allows legal terrorism (vexatious litigation) to flourish in the field of industrial relations. Ali is right, the system encourages too many unscrupulous trade unions to take frivolous matters all the way to the Industrial Court while employers have to dip deep into their pockets to pay for representation. However, Ali neglected to mention the fact that many who represent employers also carry losing matters to the Ministry of Labour and then to the Industrial Court in order to fatten their pockets; exploiting the ignorance of their clients. This is no different to the crooked attorneys throughout the country who charge exorbitant fees to write letters for workers with employment issues, knowing damn well that only trade unions can take up such matters.

Trade unions make money from dues as well as a contingency fee from settlements or judgements. Similarly, those who represent employers charge for every document they prepare, and every appearance they make. So, right or wrong, the longer the matter continues, the more money the representative makes. That is the part that Derek Ali left out.

The Industrial Court is the last bastion of justice for workers in Trinidad and Tobago and while the court has erred in many of its practices, procedures and judgements, without it, we could see the same kind of chaos that Eric Williams tried to stifle when he enacted the Industrial Stabilisation Act. The Industrial Court has a very strict mandate that focuses on social justice, fairness, equity and good conscience; concepts which some employers - and even their representatives - struggle to comprehend. Too many employers, including the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO), believe in doing to workers, what, when and how they desire and when a decision is made against them, it suddenly becomes an issue of bias. Mouttet’s allegation that workers were now “lining up to be fired” is ridiculous beyond words, misleading and shockingly sophistic.

Some employers act impulsively and then complain when the court decides that their actions were unfair, even if legal.

I have heard Industrial Court judges speak of “industrial relations law”, but no such thing exists. Industrial Relations is not law; labour law is the overarching field of study, while industrial relations, as the name suggests, attempts to apply principles and practices to preserve the relationship between trade unions on behalf of their members (workers) and the employers. Therefore, what many attorneys fail to understand, and in turn explain to their clients, is that adherence to strict legal principles will certainly result in a loss at the Industrial Court.

Employers like Mouttet who cry foul when they are apparently being advised incorrectly by their legalistically inclined attorneys, or simply fail to understand the meaning of “good industrial relations”, will continue to lose matters at the Industrial Court. This type of ignorance is not only in the private sector, because even the CPO – on behalf of the government – is a serial offender with an innumerable amount of judgements against it for wrongful dismissals.

It is a shame that the government engages in some of the most underhanded and nefarious behaviour at the expense of taxpayers who fund the payment for these judgements.

A cursory calculation of judgements against government ministries and agencies will show that millions are being spent on compensation, while the Minister of Labour remains as clueless as her comrades in Parliament.

In fact, just a few weeks ago, the Industrial Court handed down a judgement against the Ministry of Labour for a case of wrongful dismissal.

Yes, you read that correctly, and it wasn’t the first, nor will it be the last. If the government, especially the Ministry of Labour, who should be protecting workers, engages in the same exploitative conduct, and fights the same senseless matters all the way up to the Industrial Court, we can only expect the same from the private sector. Both unions and employer represent a t i v e s abuse the system – the public should not be misled to believe otherwise.

j a - mille85@ msn.com