National Union of Factory and Commercial Workers v Voko Industries Ltd [2004] FJAT 14; Award 07 of 2004 (4 March 2004)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

NO. 7 of 2004

AWARD OF
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN

NATIONAL UNION OF FACTORY & COMMERCIAL WORKERS

AND

VOKO INDUSTRIES LIMITED

NUFCW: Mr J Raman
Voko Industries: Mr H Nagin

DECISION

This is a dispute between the National Union of Factory and Commercial Workers (the "Union") and Voko Industries Limited (the "Company") concerning the dismissal of Ms Alivina Naicibaciba (the "grievor").

On 11 December 2002 a trade dispute was reported to the Permanent Secretary. The Permanent Secretary accepted the report on 13 January 2003 and referred the dispute to a Disputes Committee. The Committee was unable to reach a consensus decision and as a result the Minister authorized the Permanent Secretary to refer the dispute to the Arbitration Tribunal for settlement pursuant to section 5A(5)(a) of the Trade Disputes Act Cap.97.

The Dispute was referred to the Permanent Arbitrator on 17 February 2003 with the following terms of reference:

" ... for settlement over the termination of Ms Alivina Naicibaciba.

The Union claimed that the dismissal of Ms Naicibaciba was unwarranted, unreasonable, unfair and unjustified and that she be re-instated without loss of benefits that have accrued to her since the date of her dismissal".

The dispute came on for Preliminary Hearing on 2 April 2003. On that day the Union was represented but due to a communication breakdown the Company did not appear. The parties were directed to file preliminary submissions by 30 June 2003 and the Dispute was listed for hearing on 12 August 2003.

The time for filing preliminary submissions was extended to 31 July 2003 at the request of the parties.

When the Dispute came before the Permanent Arbitrator for hearing on 12 August 2003 the parties requested an adjournment to 14 October 2003. On 27 October 2003 the parties appeared before the Permanent Arbitrator and requested a further adjournment to allow the parties time to explore the possibility of settling the dispute. The Dispute was adjourned to 21 November 2003 for mention. On that day the Permanent Arbitrator fixed the dispute for hearing on 2 March 2004.

By letter dated 27 February 2004 from the Union, the Tribunal was informed that the dispute had been settled by the parties. Attached to that letter was a copy of a second letter also dated 27 February from the Union to the Company setting out the proposed terms of settlement. The copy letter has been signed by a representative of the Company as acknowledging and accepting the proposed terms of settlement. The copy letter is attached to this Award and an award by consent will be made in those terms.

AWARD

By consent the dispute is settled in the terms set out in the attached copy correspondence dated 27 February 2004 and signed by the parties.

DATED at Suva this 4th day of March 2004.

Mr W D Calanchini
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL