Fiji Public Service Association v Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority [2005] FJAT 36; Award 61 of 2005 (31 October 2005)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

NO. 61 OF 2005

AWARD OF
THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN

FIJI PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION

AND

FIJI ISLANDS REVENUE & CUSTOMS AUTHORITY

FPSA: Mr R Singh and Mr N G Singh
FIRCA: Mr S Sharma

DECISION

This is a dispute between the Fiji Public Service Association (the "Association") and the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority (the "Authority") concerning the implementation of the Job Evaluation Review Report (JERP).

The Association reported a trade dispute. The report was accepted by the Chief Executive Officer who referred the Dispute to a Disputes Committee. As a consensus decision was not reached the Minister authorized the Chief Executive Officer 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 23 August 2004 with the following terms of reference:

"....... For settlement over the implementation by Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority of the Job Evaluation Review Project without reaching an agreement with the Association and while the negotiation on this matter is continuing with the authority. The Authority has advertised 13 managerial posts through the Price Waterhouse Coopers consultants. This action is held to be in breach of Articles B, D & H and clause 13.2 of the 2002 Fiji Public Service Association/Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority Collective Agreement".

The Dispute was listed for a preliminary hearing on 15 September 2004. As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Association on that day, the Dispute was re-listed for mention on 19 November 2004 at the request of Mr Sharma for the Authority. After hearing the parties the Tribunal relisted the Dispute for mention on 26 November 2004.

On 26 November 2004 the parties informed the Tribunal that they had settled related pending High Court proceedings and were in the process of seeking consent orders from the Judge. As a result the Dispute was listed for further mention on 26 January 2005. On that day the parties requested that the Dispute be listed for mention on 25 February 2005. The Dispute was then listed again for mention on 30 March 2005. As there was no appearance for or on behalf of the Authority on that day, the Dispute was relisted for mention on 29 April 2005.

When the Dispute was called on 29 April 2005 the parties informed the Tribunal that the Dispute had been settled. The parties were directed to file signed Terms of Settlement within seven days.

Although a Deed of Settlement dated 3 May 2005 and signed by the parties was filed on 10 May 2005, the Tribunal requested that the parties appear on 24 June 2005 to discuss the Deed. On that day the Tribunal informed the parties that the Deed of Settlement in its present form did not adequately address the issues raised by the Terms of Reference.

As a result the parties were directed to file an amended agreement which dealt with all and only the issues raised by this Dispute.

As a result the parties eventually filed a signed Memorandum of Agreement on 28 October 2005.

AWARD

The Dispute is settled in the terms set out in the signed Memorandum of Agreement dated 28 October 2005 and filed herein and a copy of which is annexed to this Award.

DATED at Suva this 31 day of October 2005

Mr. W. D. Calanchini
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL