Oilfield Workers' Trade Union (Appellant) v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited and another (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0087

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Oilfields Workers' Trade Union

Respondent(s)

Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the respondent did not commit an industrial relations offence under section 40(1) of the Industrial Relations Act Chap 88:01?

Facts

The Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (the “Company”) is an oil company which is solely owned by the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. The Oilfield Workers’ Trade Union (the “Union”) is the recognised majority union and bargaining agent for workers employed by the Company, representing approximately 5,500 workers. In December 2017, the Company’s Board formed the view that its methods of operation required to be improved, due to severe debt and high operational costs. The Company and the Union had several meetings. They agreed that restructuring of the Company was required. On 3rd April 2018, the Union and the Company agreed a memorandum of understanding (“the MoA”) which was entered as an order of the court on 20th July 2018. This MoA provided for monthly meetings between the Company and the Union to meet specific objectives concerning restructuring. No meetings were held under the MoA. In August 2018, the Company further examined the costs of restructuring and realised that its financial situation was worse than anticipated. The only viable option available to the Company was to close down and to create a new entity focussing on only part of the Company’s previous business. The Company received the approval of the Government to proceed with closure and to terminate all employees. On 28th August 2018, the Company informed the Union that closure and termination of employees was the only viable option. The Union raised lack of compliance with the MoA. The Union requested that the Company reverse its decision but the Company refused to do so. A series of meetings were held but the Company maintained its decision to close and to terminate all employees by 30th November 2018. The employees were provided with 45 days’ notice of termination and termination pay-outs. On 1st October 2018, the Union referred a complaint to the Industrial Court under section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act Chap 88:01 (the “IRA”). Section 40(1) of the IRA required the Company to treat and enter into negotiations in good faith with the union for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Union claimed that the Company had failed in this obligation and therefore committed an industrial relations offence (an “IRO”) under s40(2) of the IRA. This was on the basis that they had acted in bad faith by arriving at its decision to terminate all employees without first consulting the Union in accordance with the MoA, or at all. The Industrial Court found that the Company had committed an IRO under s40 of the IRA. The Industrial Court ordered the Union and the Company to meet on a daily basis to address the issues prior to termination of the workers and the Company to pay the maximum fine of $4,000.00. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, finding that s40 did not create an obligation to consult in these circumstances and therefore an IRO had not been committed. The Union now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

4 September 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top