Suva City Council Staff Association v Suva City Council [2005] FJAT 49; Award 03 of 2005 (27 January 2005)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

NO. 3 OF 2005

AWARD OF
THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN

SUVA CITY COUNCIL STAFF ASSOCIATION

AND

SUVA CITY COUNCIL

SCCSA: Mr J. Toki
SCC: Mr P. Prasad

DECISION

This is a dispute between the Suva City Council Staff Association (the Association) and the Suva City Council (the Employer) concerning the Employer’s failure to promote Mrs. Vidya Wati to the post of Revenue Supervisor

A trade dispute was reported by the Association on 16 December 2002. The report was accepted on 20 January 2003 by the Permanent Secretary who referred the dispute to a Disputes Committee. As a consensus decision could not be reached, the Minister 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 2 April 2003 with the following Terms of reference:

".... for settlement over the following matters:

(a) The decision of the council to promote Ms. Matilda Fong, a cashier to the post of Revenue Supervisor instead of Mrs. Vidya Wati a Budget Officer. The union claims that this is a breach of section VIII of clause 25 of the Master Agreement reads:

(i) Efficiency

(ii) Experience

(iii) Qualifications

(iv) Seniority

(b) The Council in promoting Matilda Fong from level 10 (Revenue Officer) to Level 7 (Revenue Supervisor) instead of Mrs. Vidya Wati (Budget Officer – level 8) is wrongly determined and breached "seniority" in the above quoted clause 25 of the Agreement.

(c) The Council in promoting Matilda Fong instead of Mrs Vidya Wati who holds a Diploma in Accounting, wrongly determined (III) on qualifications as Ms. Matilda Fong is yet to qualify.

(d) The factors on "Efficiency" and "Experience" are derived from personal report file.

The Association claimed that the Council in not complying with the above conditions breached clause 25 of the Collective Agreement. Therefore, Mrs. Vidya Wati was unfairly and wrongly determined for promotion to the position of Revenue Supervisor and to be corrected with retrospective effect."

The Dispute was listed for a preliminary hearing on 15 April 2003. On that day the parties were directed to file preliminary submissions and the dispute was listed for hearing on 1 October 2003.

On 1 October 2003 the parties were directed to file final submissions.

Due to the appointment of a new Permanent Arbitrator it was necessary for the Dispute to be relisted for mention on 19 January 2004.

Due to the existence of another dispute before the Tribunal, involving the termination of the Grievor’s employment, this Dispute was relisted for mention on 14 July, 11 August, 15 September and 15 December 2004.

On 15 December 2004 following a consideration of the Tribunal’s Award in the Grievor’s dispute involving the termination of her employment, the Association indicated that it wanted to withdraw the dispute and discontinue the present proceedings before the Tribunal. The Employer consented.

CONSENT AWARD

The Dispute is withdrawn and the proceedings before the Tribunal are discontinued.

Dated at Suva this 27 day of January 2005.

Mr W.D. Calanchini
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL