Holiday Inn appeals Supreme Court ruling
February 25, 2007
Holiday Inn Sunspree Resort is appealing against a Supreme Court ruling which has upheld an Industrial Disputes Tribunal's (IDT) decision as to the categories of workers eligible to vote in the National Workers' Union's (NWU) claim for bargaining rights.
Senior Puisne Judge Justice Marva McIntosh made the ruling this month and the effect of her ruling is that former contract workers of Holiday Inn are eligible to vote in the ballot to determine the union's claim for bargaining rights they are no longer employed to the hotel.
Holiday Inn contended that it had taken a policy decision in 2004 to discontinue its practice of using contract workers after Hurricane Ivan damaged the hotel in 2004. The contract workers had their contracts terminated, or those which expired were not renewed.
The contracts were terminated after the union had served its claim for bargaining rights for contract workers.
A dispute arose in December 2004 between Holiday Inn and the NWU regarding the categories of workers for whom ballots should be taken.The Ministry of Labour referred the dispute to the IDT for settlement. The terms of reference to the IDT were to determine and settle the dispute with regard to the categories of workers for whom a ballot should be taken, or persons who should be eligible to vote in the ballot to determine the union's claim for bargaining rights.
Entitled to vote
On May 30, 2005, the IDT made an award providing the list of workers employed by Holiday Inn who were entitled to vote. Holiday Inn took the issue to the Supreme Court, contending that the IDT erred when it decided that the workers in Exhibit 18 (which was a list of the workers employed by Holiday Inn and members of the NWU at the date of service of the Union's claim) were entitled to vote.
Attorneys-at-law Julie Thompson and Tasha Manley from the Attorney-General's Department represented the IDT and the Ministry and they argued that the IDT had the jurisdiction to determine either the category of workers of whom a ballot should be taken or the persons entitled to vote in the ballot. They submitted further that the workers' right to vote on a ballot to determine bargaining rights was preserved even where a worker was dismissed (under a contract) or was no longer employed to Holiday Inn subsequent to the service of the claim. They argued that the issue between the parties was with the status of the workers (that was whether they were temporary, short term, part-time casual workers, probationers) and not with the categories of workers of whom a ballot should be taken. They submitted that it was therefore within the IDT's jurisdiction to have decided on the persons eligible to vote without first deciding the categories of workers of whom a ballot should be taken.
They argued that the only evidence before the IDT during the hearing of the dispute was Exhibit 18 and Holiday Inn did not adduce any evidence in relation to a list of workers at the hearing before the IDT. They said the IDT made an award based on the evidence before it and the court should not disturb the tribunal's ruling. Attorney-at-law, Candis Craig, who represented the NWU adopted the submissions made by the government lawyers....
Author: Barbara Gayle
Source: Jamaica Gleaner
