![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Trade Disputes Panel of Solomon Islands |
IN THE TRADE DISPUTES PANEL
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Case No. L9/6/17
BETWEEN:
WORKERS UNION OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Applicant
AND:
HARRISON DAILY MART
Respondent
Panel:
1. Willy Vaiyu - Deputy Chairman
2. Bryan Ulufia - Employer Representative
3. Edward Bamu - Employee Representative
Appearances:
Date of hearing: 9th August 2017.
Date finding delivered: 10th May 2018.
ISSUE
“Whether Mrs. Rollanter Barividu was terminated by her employer as claimed by the Union or that she left employment by her own accord as claimed by the Respondent.”
FACTS
Before working at Harrison Daily Mart she worked also as a Shop Assistant at Jack Wong Store another shop owned by the Respondent.
She started work at Jack Wong Store in March 2014 and was moved to Harrison Daily Mart in January 2015.
She gave evidence that there was no warning letter and that there was no reason given for her termination as there was no termination letter.
She went and reported the matter to the Commissioner of Labour who wrote to the Respondent on the 05/08/2015 advising to do any of the following as they view the termination was unfair;
WUSI then referred the matter as a trade dispute to the Trade Disputes Panel on the 28/09/2016.
LAW
Unfair dismissal cases are dealt with by the Panel under the Unfair Dismissal Act, Cap 77 the Panel must first make a finding if such a dismissal is a trade dispute under the Trade Disputes Act, Cap 75.
“A dispute between employees and employers, or between groups of employees, which is connected with one or more of the following matters-
(a) terms and conditions of employment or the physical conditions in which employees are required to work;
(b) engagement or non-engagement, or termination or suspension of employment or the duties of employment, of one or more employees;
(c) allocation of work as between employees or groups of employees;
(d) matters of discipline
(e) membership or non-membership of a trade union; and
(f) machinery for negotiation or consultation, and other procedures relating to any of the matters mentioned above, including the recognition of any trade union by an employer.”(Italic, Panel emphases)
It seemed that this case might fall under the meaning in (b),
“engagement or non-engagement, or termination or suspension of employment or the duties of employment, of one or more employees”
(1) A party to a trade dispute may at any time refer the dispute to the Trade Disputes Panel.
(2) If it appears to the Minister
(a) that, in connection with a trade dispute, any industrial action is being or is likely to be taken; and
(b) that the action concerned has caused or would cause an interruption in the supply of goods or the provision of services; and
(c) that the interruption is or would be of such a nature or on such a scale as to be likely to affect the national economy or national
security, or create public disorder, or endanger the supply of essential goods or services, he may refer the dispute to the Panel. (Italic, Panel emphases)
While Section 4 (1) gives the liberty to any party to refer a trade dispute sub-section (2) outlines the conditions for referrals.
(3) A complaint under this section may not be made after the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of dismissal. (Italic, Panel emphases)
ORDERS
APPEAL
On behalf on the Panel,
Willy Vaiyu.
Deputy Chairman
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBTDP/2018/3.html