Hot Bread Kitchen Employees Trade Union v Hot Bread Kitchen [2007] FJAT 32; Award 34 of 2007 (21 June 2007)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

NO 34 OF 2007

AWARD OF
THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN

HOT BREAD KITCHEN EMPLOYEES TRADE UNION

AND

HOT BREAD KITCHEN

HBKETU: Mr F Anthony
Hot Bread: Mr D Prasad

DECISION

This is a dispute between the Hot Bread Kitchen Employees Trade Union (the Union) and Hot Bread Kitchen (the Employer) concerning the Unions Log of Claims 2004.

A trade dispute was reported by the Union on 18 January 2005. The report was accepted by the Chief Executive Officer on 7 February 2005. The Dispute was referred to conciliation at the conclusion of which the parties signed an agreement dated 5 April to refer the Dispute to voluntary arbitration.

As a result the Minister authorized the Chief Executive Officer to refer the Dispute to an Arbitration Tribunal for settlement pursuant to section 6 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 97.

The Dispute was referred to the Permanent Arbitrator on 18 April 2005 with the following terms of reference:

"- - - for settlement over the failure by the management to negotiate and complete agreement on the Union’s Log of Claims 2004."

The Dispute was listed for preliminary hearing on 29 April 2005. On that day the parties were directed to file their preliminary submissions within 28 days and the Dispute was listed for mention on 24 June 2005.

As neither party had complied with the Tribunal’s directions, the Tribunal granted the parties a further 14 days to file their preliminary submissions and the Dispute was relisted for mention on 29 July 2005.

The Employer filed its preliminary submissions on 29 June 2005.

The Union was then granted a further extension and directed to file its submissions on or before 24 August 2005. The Dispute was listed for further mention on 30 September 2005.

The Union filed its submissions on 3 August 2005.

At the mention on 30 September 2005, the parties informed the Tribunal that they wished to proceed by way of written submissions as they did not intend to lead any evidence. The Tribunal fixed a schedule for the filing of final submissions with the agreement of the parties.

As the parties had not complied with the Tribunal’s directions, the Tribunal listed the Dispute for mention on 24 February 2006. At the request of the parties the Dispute was re-listed for mention on 24 March, 28 April, 26 May and 23 June 2006. It would appear that the parties were attempting to settle the dispute through negotiations. On 23 June 2006 the Tribunal directed that the Dispute would be relisted for mention on 28 July for the purpose of fixing a hearing date unless the parties had either settled the
Dispute or had filed a signed statement of agreed facts. At the request of the parties, the same directions were given on 28 July and the Dispute was relisted for mention on 1 September, and then on 29 September 2006.

After a further mention hearing on 27 October 2006, the Dispute was finally fixed for hearing on 22 January 2007. When the Dispute was called for hearing on that day, the parties informed the Tribunal that the Dispute had been settled. The parties were directed to file signed terms of settlement by 26 January 2007. For reasons best known to the parties, the signed terms of settlement was not filed until 6 June 2007.

CONSENT AWARD

The Tribunal’s Award is in the terms of the signed Terms of Settlement filed herein on 6 June 2007 a copy of which is Attachment A to this Award.

DATED at Suva this 21 day of June 2007

Mr. W. D. Calanchini
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL