National Union of Hospitality, Catering and Tourism Industries Employees v Shangri-La's Fijian Resort [2007] FJAT 46; Award 48 of 2007 (30 July 2007)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

NO 48 OF 2007

AWARD OF
THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN

NATIONAL UNION OF HOSPITALITY CATERING AND TOURISM INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES

AND

SHANGRI-LA’S FIJIAN RESORT

NUHCTIE: Mr D Urai
Shangri-la: Mr J Apted

DECISION

This is a dispute between the National Union of Hospitality Catering and Tourism Industries Employees (the Union) and Shangri-la’s Fijian Resort (the Resort) concerning the summary dismissal of Mr Kavekini Varo (the Grievor).

A trade dispute was reported by the Union. The report was accepted by the Chief Executive Officer who referred the Dispute to a Disputes Committee.

Subsequently 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 2 November 2005 with the following terms of reference:

"- - - for settlement over the allegations by the employer that Mr Varo was summarily dismissed for dishonesty and fraud as follows:

i) That Mr Varo on 9 September 2004 had utilized an expired food voucher for a guest meal;

ii) That Mr Varo on 13 August 2004 had split additional items on a guest’s bill after he had signed for it and posted it to his hotel account.

The Union submits that management had carried outs its own investigations into the matter without any consultation with the Union which is a breach of section 12.1 (c of the Collective Agreement. The Union further submits that management’s action to terminate Mr Varo is a breach of the same Collective Agreement and is unfair and unjust and therefore should re-instate Mr Varo without any loss of benefits."

The Dispute was listed for a preliminary hearing on 25 November 2005. On that day the Dispute was listed for mention on 27 January 2006 to enable the parties to have further discussions.

At the request of the parties the Dispute was relisted for mention on 24 February, 24 March and 28 April 2006. The parties were then directed to file their preliminary submissions within six weeks as their on-going discussions had not resolved the Dispute. The matter was relisted for mention on 23 June 2006.

The Union filed its preliminary submissions on 8 June and the Resort did so on on 23 June 2006.

At the request of the parties the Dispute was again listed for mention on 28 July, 1 September, 24 November 2006 and 19 January 2007. The Tribunal then listed the Dispute for special mention on 2 February 2007. The Dispute was then fixed for hearing commencing on 4 June 2007.

By letter dated 16 May 2007 the Union made an application for the hearing date to be vacated due to the overseas commitments of its advocate. The Dispute was listed for mention on 18 May 2007. On that day the Union confirmed the application. As the Resort did not oppose the application, the Tribunal directed that the hearing date be vacated and the Dispute was refixed for hearing on 23 July 2007.

When the Dispute was called on for hearing on 23 July 2007 the parties informed the Tribunal that the Dispute had been settled.

CONSENT AWARD

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

DATED at Suva this 30 day of July 2007

Mr. W. D. Calanchini
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL