Court
orders compensation for oil company worker
Port Spain
Petroleumworldtt.com
01 13 08
A
$50,000 compensation order made by the Industrial
Court has been affirmed against an energy company
which, the court found, unfairly dismissed a worker
the company felt was a "trouble-maker".
The worker, Kevin Pierre, has been hired under
a labour-only contract to work for a UK drilling
company in the North Sea, and he was fired just
after he found out he was entitled to twice the
salary the local company, Gulf Petroleum Services,
had contracted him for.
In a December 18 judgment, the Appeal Court ruled
against the company but made no order as to costs.
The appeal itself turned on a legal analysis on
whether Gulf Petroleum or the UK company, Santa
Fe Drilling Co, was to be considered Pierre's employer.
Attorneys
representing Gulf Petroleum relied on section
2 (4) (b) of the Industrial Relations Act,
which states that "where a person engages
the services of a worker for the purpose of providing
those services to another, then, such other person
shall be deemed to be the employer of the worker
under a labour only contract".
According to the facts of the case, Pierre had
worked on an offshore rig for Gulf Petroleum, which
operates out of Guayaguarare, and he was asked
in August 2001 whether he wanted to work in the
North Sea -- the area of the Atlantic Ocean between
the UK and Europe.
Pierre agreed and resigned from the company and
was re-hired on a labour contract. He was then
sent to work on rotation for Santa Fe, and when
he returned to Trinidad in September 2001 he was
summarily dismissed by Gulf Petroleum.
The Oilfield Workers' Trade Union filed a trade
dispute on Pierre's behalf, and when the case was
heard at the Industrial Court, Gulf Petroleum claimed
Pierre had made threats to the company's management.
The company did not call any witnesses, and the
court accepted Pierre's claim that he was dismissed
after he learned that he should have been paid
a higher salary and told another employee he was
going to investigate it.
The company contended that Santa Fe Drilling was
to be regarded as Pierre's employer, and any disputes
over his employment should not concern Gulf Petroleum.
The Industrial Court held that Gulf Petroleum
was to be considered Pierre's employer, despite
section 2 (4) (b) of the Act.
Gulf appealed the decision, and although the Appeal
Court agreed that Santa Fe would be held to be
Pierre's employer on an application of the Act,
but the court still ruled against Gulf and refused
to apply the provision.
Delivering the leading judgment, Justice of Appeal
Allan Mendonca adopted a purposive interpretation
of the Act, pointing out that it had to be applied
for the benefit of workers and not to produce any
absurd results.
The judge stated there were three conditions for
the provision of the Act to operate: Pierre had
to be a worker within the meaning of the Act; he
had to have been hired under a labour only contract;
and his services had to have been engaged for the
purposes of providing them to another person who
was to be deemed his employer.
Mendonca concluded, contrary to the findings of
the Industrial Court, that Pierre satisfied these
conditions, but there were other factors to be
considered.
"Deeming provisions (such as section 2 (4)
(b)) must be construed to have effect only for
the purposes for which they were enacted," he
said, adding that the court had to interpret the
provision in accordance with what Parliament intended.
"The Act according to its long title is to
make a better provision for the stabilisation,
improvement and promotion of industrial relations," Mendonca
pointed out.
"So
far as section 2 (4) (b) is concerned there is
no dispute that it was put there for the
benefit of workers. The provision is meant to deal
with the situation where a person engages the services
of a worker simply for the purpose of providing
those services to another.
"Very often the providers of the worker's
services were men of straw so that if awards were
made against then, say for unfair dismissal, the
workers very often were left with empty judgments," the
judge went on.
He said an important consideration in Pierre's
case was that Santa Fe was not registered in Trinidad
and Tobago and, as such, would not be under any
penalty if it decided to ignore a judgment against
it from a local court.
"In these circumstances, section 2 (4) (b)
which was enacted for the purposes of the Act will
have very little bite in such cases (where) the
very purpose for which it was enacted can be defeated," Mendonca
stated.
Justice Mendonca said Parliament could not have
intended for section 2 (4) (b) to apply in Pierre's
case, and in the absence of that section, the Act
deemed Gulf Petroleum to be Pierre's employer and
liable for his dismissal.
Justices of Appeal Stanley John and Ivor Archie
also heard the appeal and agreed with Justice Mendonca's
conclusions.
Story
by Imran
Ali from
Trinidad Express
Trinidad
Express
Wednesday,
January 9th 2008
Copyright
©2007 Petroleumworld. All Rights Reserved.
