Fiji Bank and Finance Sector Employees Union v Colonial National Bank [2004] FJAT 27; Award 21 of 2004 (6 July 2004)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

NO.21 OF 2004

AWARD OF
THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN

FIJI BANK AND FINANCE SECTOR EMPLOYEES UNION

AND

COLONIAL NATIONAL BANK

FBFSEU: Mr P Rae
Colonial: Mr W Clarke

DECISION

This is a dispute between the Fiji Bank and Finance Sector Employees Union (the "Union") and Colonial National Bank (the "Company") concerning the Company’s refusal to pay an appropriate Housing subsidy to Mr Shalendra Raman.

The report of a trade dispute by the Union was accepted by the Permanent Secretary who referred the dispute to a Disputes Committee. The Minister subsequently authorized the Permanent Secretary to refer the dispute to an 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 11 March 2002 with the following terms of reference:

"..... for settlement over the bank’s refusal to pay an appropriate Housing Subsidy to Mr Shalendra Raman. The Union views the bank’s action as a breach of Clause 11 of the Collective Agreement and seeks payment of the housing subsidy to Shalendra".

The Dispute was listed for preliminary hearing on 22 March 2002. On that day the parties informed the Tribunal that they wished to proceed by way of written submissions. Accordingly the parties were directed to file written submissions by 22 April 2002 and the Award to follow thereafter on notice.

By letter dated 22 April 2002 the parties jointly sought an extension for filing submissions to 2 May 2002 which was granted by the Tribunal.

By a further letter dated 2 May 2002 Messrs Howards on behalf of the Company sought a further extension of 14 days. It would appear that the Union did not object to this application and it was granted by the Tribunal.

By letter dated 6 June 2002 the Company’s legal representatives informed the Tribunal that there were settlement discussions taking place between the parties. The parties had apparently agreed to put on hold the filing of written submissions and the Tribunal was requested to vacate its directions made on 22 March 2002 in respect of the filing of submissions. The Tribunal again granted the request.

On 15 August 2002 the Union wrote to the Tribunal Secretary indicating that the dispute had not been resolved and requesting that the Dispute be relisted for a preliminary hearing.

As a result the Dispute was listed for mention on 3 September 2002 when it was adjourned to a date to be fixed. On 26 November 2002 the Dispute was called on before the Tribunal and was listed for mention on 14 January 2003. This mention date was vacated due to cyclone Ami and the Dispute was relisted for mention on 3 February 2003. After several appearances before the Tribunal, the Dispute was listed for hearing on 6 August 2003.

By letter dated 31 July 2003 Messrs Howards informed the Tribunal that the parties were close to settlement and requested that the hearing date be vacated. This request was granted by the Tribunal and the Dispute was listed for mention on 22 August 2003. On that day the parties requested further time to discuss settlement and the Dispute was relisted for mention on 19 September 2003. On that day the parties informed the Tribunal that the Dispute was settled and that written confirmation would be forwarded to the Tribunal on the same day.

After two written requests from the Tribunal Secretary, the Company’s legal representative formally informed the Tribunal by letter dated 16 January 2004 that the Dispute had been settled. Terms of Settlement dated 23 April 2004 and signed by the parties were filed with the Tribunal on 10 May 2004.

CONSENT AWARD

The Dispute is settled in accordance with the Terms of Settlement dated 23 April 2004 the contents of which the parties have agreed will remain confidential.

DATED at Suva this 6^th day of July 2004

Mr W D Calanchini
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL