Fiji Electricity Workers Association v Fiji Electricity Authority [2004] FJAT 8; Award 42 of 2004 (12 October 2004)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

NO. 42 OF 2004

AWARD OF
THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

INTERPRETATION OF AN AWARD

IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN

FIJI ELECTRICITY WORKERS ASSOCIATION

AND

FIJI ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

FEWA: Mr D Urai
FEA: Mr P Vunituraga

INTERPRETATION

In Award No. 32 of 2004 the Arbitration Tribunal settled a trade dispute between the Fiji Electricity Workers Association (the Association) and the Fiji Electricity Authority (the Employer) concerning the reduction by the Employer of merit increment points in respect of 11 workers who were specified by name in the Reference.

By letter dated 16 September 2004 the Employer sought clarification from the Tribunal on whether the two months salary compensation is to be paid to the specified employees at their 2001 rates of pay or their current rates of pay.

The application was listed for mention on 23 September 2004. On that day both parties made brief oral submissions.

The Tribunal accepts that this is in fact an application by the Employer for an interpretation of an award pursuant to section 27 of the Trade Disputes Act Cap. 97.

In award No. 32 of 2004 dated 31 August 2004 the Tribunal directed that each of the eight specified employees be paid two (2) months’ wages for the failure by the Employer to explain in a timely manner the revised appraisals and scores. The claim by the three remaining workers had been withdrawn by consent.

Mr Vunituraga for the Authority submitted that the appropriate scale for calculating the account to be paid to each employee should be the rate which was applicable in December 2002. This was appropriate because the merit payment related to the year 2001 and it was paid in 2002. It was also in 2002 that the Authority had agreed to pay an additional merit point to each of the specified employees.

Mr Urai submitted that the appropriate rate was that which applied as at the date of the Award.

Whilst no evidence or material was placed before the Tribunal as to what, if any, difference exists between the rate of pay applicable in December 2002 and August 2004, it can only be assumed that there is some difference or otherwise there would be no point in making the application.

The award is not designed to ensure that 2001 unpaid wages or allowances are in fact paid. The award is designed to represent an amount payable to each employee as compensation for the manner in which the Employer handled the revision of the assessment for calculating 2001 merit increment increases. As a result the rate for paying the additional merit increment for 2001 which was paid in December 2002 is not necessarily the appropriate rate.

The revised assessments were for the year 2001. The revision occurred in the first half of 2002. On that basis the rates which are applicable in August 2004 may over-compensate and as a result would also appear to be inappropriate.

Under the circumstances the Tribunal considers that a fair compromise would be to fix the relevant date for calculating the appropriate rate as the date the trade dispute was reported to the Permanent Secretary. From the material in the file it would appear that the trade dispute was reported on 30th June 2003. The Tribunal directs that the two months wages payable to the eight employees be calculated by reference to the wage rates applicable as at that date.

DATED at Suva this 12^th day of October 2004

Mr W D Calanchini

ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL