Thirty three workers of the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Committee have lost their lawsuit to recoup three months salary they were denied while protesting health and safety conditions at the Couva offices in 2014.
Delivering a 64-page judgment in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, Justice Margaret Mohammed ruled that the workers failed to properly invoke Section 15 of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, which provides for workers to be paid for failing to work in facilities with poor health and safety standards.
“In particular in circumstances where it was not warranted and where some of the claimants knew that they could not substantiate the allegations,”Mohammed said.
Mohammed also ruled that workers had mistakenly sucked into their union the Public Services Association (PSA)’s campaign to close down Government offices that year.
“The claimants’ action were hasty since it was clear that the claimants engaged in the work stoppage under the guise of actual health and safety concerns when admittedly, they knew that such action was all part of the PSA’s action in the wider public service to close down government offices at the time,” Mohammed said.
According to the lawsuit, the workers began the work stoppage on June 24, 2014 as they complained that the building at Dove and Baliser Avenues in Couva unsafe and dilapidated.
While they claimed that the company’s management had failed to address long standing issues of poor ventilation, limited toilets, water shortages and a rat and cockroach infestation. They eventually returned on September 2014, after repairs works were performed. Mohammed ruled that these issues were exaggerated by the employees, whose evidence was implausible and disingenuous.
She pointed to the evidence and records of the company which showed regular maintenance and pest control.
Mohammed also took issue with the fact that the workers merely came to work and signed and left by 10 am for the period, as the legislation requires workers to be present to be assigned work outside the disputed facilities.
“The reasons they gave for leaving the premises was not legitimate. They could have stayed in part of the premises where the 12 workers who continued working were using,” Mohammed said.
As part of her judgment, Mohammed ordered the workers to pay the company’s legal costs for the claim.
The workers were represented by Rajiv Persad and Kiel Tacklalsingh, while Russell Martineau, SC, Rishi Dass and Alisa Khan represented the company.
