Appeal Court sets aside Industrial Court ruling

THREE appellate court judges have set aside a ruling of the Industrial Court on a preliminary point raised by a shipping company on the status of one of its former managers.

In a written ruling, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Charmaine Pemberton and Andre des Vignes sent back to the Industrial Court an application by Caribbean Shipping Agencies Ltd (CSAL) to have the Registration, Recognition and Certification Board (RRCB) determine if one of its former employees was a “worker” in line with provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.

The appellate court had to determine if the other court was wrong in refusing the question of whether CSAL’s former employee Stephen Kalicharan was a “worker” under the Act.

Kalicharan was a former customs brokerage manager with the shipping company and was allegedly made to sign a resignation letter in March 2015, after he and some friends were arrested and charged by Venezuela’s Guardia Nacional when they were returning to Trinidad from a sailing trip.

Kalicharan and his friends were arrested on January 26, 2015, and released one month later on February 25.

When he returned to work, he was denied access to his job site. The judgment says he was made to sign a resignation letter after being accused of doing private jobs.

The National Union of Government and Federated Workers (NUGFW) took up the case for Kalicharan and after seeking a meeting with the company, it reported the matter to the Minister of Labour for conciliation.

The company, at the Industrial Court, raised the issue of Kalicharan’s classification as a preliminary point, but it was dismissed.

In the appeal court’s ruling, Bereaux said on the facts the question on whether Kalicharan could be properly described as a worker under the Act did arise and the RRCB was the only body to determine this.

He also said the other court had the discretion to refer the issue to the board and even if there was undue delay on the part of the company to make the application, in exceptional cases an award for costs could be made.

Bereaux said in CSAL’s case, the Industrial Court was wrong in its decision and urged that court to examine cases on the evidence, including that of the employer.

“By ignoring the employer’s evidence, the court may be assuming a jurisdiction it does not have. Moreover, permitting a manager to utilise the court’s dispute resolution process is also an abuse of the court’s process,” Bereaux said.

The shipping company was represented by attorney Dinesh Rambally and Karina Singh. The NUGFW was represented by attorney Natasha Samuel.