Fiji Bank and Finance Sector Employees Union v Public Rental Board [2005] FJAT 31; Award 48 of 2005 (5 October 2005)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

NO. 48 OF 2005

AWARD OF
THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN

FIJI BANK AND FINANCE SECTOR EMPLOYEES UNION

AND

PUBLIC RENTAL BOARD

FNFSEU: Mr P Rae
PRB: Mr J Apted

DECISION

This is a dispute between the Fiji Bank and Finance Sector Employees Union (the "Union") and the Public Rental Board (the "Employer") concerning issues arising out f the 2003 Log of Claims.

The Minister authorized the Chief Executive Officer5 to refer this Dispute to an Arbitration Tribunal for settlement pursuant to section 6 (2) (c ) of the Trade Disputes Act Cap.97.

The Dispute was referred to the Permanent Arbitration on 4 June 2004 with the following terms of reference:

".... For settlement of the Union’s Log of Claims for 2003 as follows:

Part A – Section, Wages & Allowance

The Union claims a 5% general increase on all salaries, wages and allowances effective from 1 January 2003.

Part B – Other conditions

1. Retirement gratuity benefit to be uniform for salaried and unestablished staff at 2 weeks pay for each year of service.

2. Leave Allowance entitlements to be reverted to every three years as before.

3. Review bereavement leave entitlement to achieve uniformity for both categories of employees.

4. Settlement of short payment of last year’s agreement"

The Dispute was listed for a preliminary hearing on 18 June 2004. On that day the parties were directed to file preliminary submissions within six weeks and at the request of the parties the Dispute was listed for mention on 15 September 2004.

As neither party had filed preliminary submissions within the time fixed by the Tribunal the parties were directed to file then submissions within 21 days from 15 September 2004. The Dispute was listed for further mention on 13 October 2004. On that day the Dispute was listed for hearing on 1 February 2005.

The Union filed its preliminary submissions on October and the Employer did so on 6 October 2004.

The Dispute came on for hearing in Suva on 1 February 2005. At the commencement of the hearing the parties informed the Tribunal that items 1, 2 and 3 of Part B of the terms of reference to be withdrawn and the proceedings in respect of those matters to be discontinued. At the request of the parties the hearing of the Dispute was adjourned part heard to 23 March 2005.

On that day the hearing of the Dispute resumed. The parties informed the Tribunal that Part A of the terms of reference was by consent withdrawn and the proceedings discontinued. The only matter remaining in dispute was item 4 of Part B of the terms of reference. In respect of that matter the parties sought and were granted leave to file final written submissions. The parties indicated that there was no requirement to call evidence.

The Union filed its final submissions on 13 May 2005. The Employer filed answering submissions on 11 August and the Union filed reply submissions on 17 August 2005.

As already noted, the one matter remaining in dispute is item 4 of Part B of the Union’s claim. This relates to the allegation that the Employer has not complied with clause 1 of an agreement dated 23 December 2002 between the Union and the Employer. Clause 1 states:

"That all salaries and wages shall be increased by 2.0% being COLA adjustment backdated to 1 January 2002. Retrospective compensation of 4.1% backdated to 1 January 2000 shall be paid as bonus (one off payment) to all employees.

This settlement will satisfy all current pay claims including arrears of unpaid annual increments and 2002 COLA".

It appears from the submissions that the issue in dispute relates to the second payment which is to be made pursuant to the agreement.

The Employer has made a one off bonus payment of 4.1% of one year’s salary. The Employer has submitted that this single one – off payment of 4.1% is in conformity with the plain words of the agreement.

The Union has submitted that the plain words of clause 1 of the agreement mean that a single payment of 4.1% backdated to 1 January 2000 is to be made by the Employer to all employees.

The Tribunal has carefully considered the submissions filed by the parties. It is the opinion of the Tribunal that the payment referred to in clause one which is the subject matter of this Dispute has the following characteristics or components. First, the amount of the payment is to be 4.1%. Secondly, it is a one-off bonus payment. Thirdly, it is to be paid to all employees. Fourthly, it is paid as retrospective compensation. Finally, it is to be backdated to 1 January 2000.

The words are clear and unambiguous. The Employer is required to calculate each employee’s entitlement at 4.1% of the wages and salaries payable to that employee at any point in time on and from 1 January 2000. As the Employer has only made those calculations for what appears to be a 12 month period backdated to 1 January 2002, it is now required to calculate entitlements back to 1 January 2000.

The Tribunal does not accept the interpretation of the clause put forward by the Employer in its submissions.

Furthermore, in view of the plain and unequivocal language used in clause 1, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary nor appropriate to go behind the agreement and consider the correspondence or negotiations which preceded the signing of the agreement. In any event there is no material which would have compelled the Tribunal to form any conclusion different from that which has been stated above.

AWARD

The Employer is required to comply with clause 1 of the Agreement and pay to each employee the balance of the 4.1% one off bonus payment which is to be calculated on and from 1 January 2000.

DATED at Suva this ......... day of September 2005

ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL