Industrial Court to review retirement benefits for 3 Servol teachers

THE Court of Appeal has upheld an Industrial Court ruling awarding retirement benefits to three long-serving early-childhood educators who were terminated by Servol Ltd at age 60, despite no express contractual retirement provisions.

In a majority judgment delivered by Justices of Appeal Ronnie Boodoosingh and Geoffrey Henderson, the court rejected Servol’s arguments and affirmed the Industrial Court's jurisdiction under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Relations Act to determine whether the absence of retirement benefits breached principles of good industrial relations practice.

Justice of Appeal Peter Rajkumar dissented.

The appeal was only allowed in part to permit reconsideration of compensation by the Industrial Court.

The Early Childhood Teachers’ Trade Union had filed complaints on behalf of three employees who had served for 30, 35, and 31 years, respectively.

All were asked to retire at age 60, even though a national policy suggested employees could work until 65.

“The main issue...was whether the employees were entitled to any retirement benefits either by way of pension or lump sum,” the ruling noted. Despite no written contract stipulating benefits, the Industrial Court awarded them compensation based on one month’s salary per year of service.

Servol argued the Industrial Court acted beyond its jurisdiction. However, the Court of Appeal concluded the dispute had been properly raised and that Servol was aware of and had accepted the framing of the issue.

“Servol cannot complain on appeal that they were not given an opportunity to address the issue,” Justice Boodoosingh said, adding that there was no evidence the employees were ever informed they would not receive retirement benefits.

“Context is everything. And it was in that context that the Industrial Court made its judgment that the non-payment of a retirement benefit was not in keeping with good industrial relations practice in light of the evidence before it and that this departure from good industrial relations practice merited an award in each case.

“The court was performing its mandate under the act, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, to decide on the ambit of good industrial relations practice.”

He added, “The Industrial Court under the IRA is the body with the expertise, experience and exclusive mandate to decide what constitutes good industrial relations principles and practices for the country”

The Court of Appeal said the Industrial Court acted fairly and justly by considering the circumstances, including Servol’s status as a not-for-profit organisation, but noted there was no specific evidence of adverse consequences from granting retirement benefits.

The majority maintained that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction under Section 10(3) because the dispute had been properly brought before it and there was no error of law or misinterpretation of the issues.

Boodoosingh further noted that the Industrial Court did not create a new legal claim but fulfilled its mandate to determine whether a retirement benefit was warranted based on good industrial relations practice.

In deciding the appeal, the judge concluded the Appeal Court could not override the Industrial Court’s judgment on what constitutes such practice in TT.

Given Servol’s status as a nonprofit, its national service role, lack of legal representation, and the novel nature of the claim, the judges considered the case exceptional and justified sending it back to the Industrial Court.

He held that the Industrial Court should now be allowed to receive evidence and arguments from both parties regarding the appropriate level of compensation.

He also noted the workers had waited a long time and urged a speedy resolution, suggesting the cases be handled together with minimal delay.

The appeal was, therefore, allowed in part to permit reconsideration of compensation by the Industrial Court.

Delroy Burris appeared for Servol while Anthony Bullock represented the union.