Fiji Electricity Workers Association v Fiji Electricity Authority [2007] FJAT 56; Award 58 of 2007 (9 August 2007)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

NO 58 of 2007

AWARD OF
THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN

FIJI ELECTRICITY WORKERS ASSOCIATION

AND

FIJI ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

FEWA: Mr D Urai
F E A: Mr N Lajendra

DECISION

This is a dispute between Fiji Electricity Workers Association (the Union) and Fiji Electricity Authority (the Employer) concerning the refusal to appoint trainee technicians (the Grievors) into the position of ICT Technicians under the terms of the staff Collective Agreement.

A trade dispute was reported by the Union on 31 July 2006. The report was accepted by the Chief Executive Officer who referred the Dispute to a Disputes Committee.

Subsequently 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 9 May 2007 with the following terms of reference:

" - - - for settlement over the Authority’s refusal to appoint Trainee Technician Koroi Anise and Wolseley Leveny into the position of ICT Technician under the terms of the Staff Collective Agreement. The Association further contends that the Authority’s actions as unfair, unreasonable and unjustified therefore the individual contract should be repeated and Mr Anise and Mr Wolseley be appointed on conditions covered under the staff Collective Agreement. The Association also seeks that they should be paid all increments and allowances that they were deprived of from the date they were made to sign individual contracts."

The Dispute was listed for a preliminary hearing on 18 May 2007. On that day the parties were directed to file preliminary submissions within 21 days and the Dispute was listed for mention on 29 June 2007.

The Employer filed its preliminary submissions on 25 June 2007. The Union eventually filed its submissions on 6 July 2007. The Dispute was fixed for hearing on 30 July 2007. The hearing did commence on that day. During the course of the proceedings the Tribunal and the parties discussed certain legal issues which had emerged from the evidence given by the first witness called by the Union.

It was apparent to the Tribunal that prior to their appointments to the positions which were the subject matter of the Dispute, the two Grievors were not and could not have been members of the Union which represented those positions. The Tribunal expressed the view that the Employer was at liberty to offer whatever terms and conditions it thought appropriate to job seekers who were not union members. Once the two Grievors had been appointed and signed then individual contracts they were free to join the Union. The Constitution guarantees that right. Once the two Grievors had joined the Union, the Collective Agreement which the Union had signed with the Employer became an implied condition of each Grievor’s contract of service under section 34 (7) of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 97.

As a result of these observations, the parties requested an adjournment to enable them to have further discussions. The further hearing of the Dispute was adjourned part heard to 3 August 2007.

When the hearing resumed on 3 August 2007, the Union indicated to the Tribunal that it wanted to make an application to withdraw the Dispute and discontinue the proceedings. The Employer did not oppose the application.

AWARD

The Dispute is withdrawn and the proceedings discontinued.

DATED at Suva this 9 day of August 2007.

Mr. W. D. Calanchini
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL