Servol Limited (Appellant) v Early Childhood Teachers Trade Union (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0118

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

SERVOL LIMITED

Respondent(s)

Early Childhood Teachers Trade Union

Issue

Does the Industrial Court have jurisdiction to decide that a failure to provide for retirement benefits constitutes a breach of good industrial relations practices for which an award was justifiable under the Industrial Relations Act 1972, section 10(3)?

Facts

This appeal concerns the correct interpretation of The Industrial Court Act Chapter 88:01 of the laws of Trinidad and Tobago (also referred to as the “Industrial Relations Act”), section 10(3). The appellant (“the Employer”) is a not-for-profit organisation which relies on government subventions (i.e. subsidies) for its existence and to sustain its operations. The respondent (“the Trade Union”) is a trade union body that represents several individuals employed by the Employer. The appeal is brought in respect of three individuals (“the Employees/Workers”). Each had attained the age of retirement (60 years) at the time that their employment was terminated. The first case (“TD 288”) involves Kamanee Jassant-Somai. On 1 March 2019, his employment was terminated via a letter a few months after he had turned age 60. The Employer contended that Mr Jassant-Somai’s termination did not include consideration of any retirement benefit as there were no provisions in his terms and conditions of employment. The second case (“TD 201”) involves Magdalene Stanisclaus-Marshall who was employed as an Early Childhood Care and Education Teacher. On 14 January 2019, the Employer wrote to Ms Stanisclaus-Marshall and informed her that having attained the age of 60 years, her last working day would be 28 February 2019 and that she would be retired from 1 March 2019. The third case (“TD 202”) involved Hyacinth Rampersadsingh, a trained Early Childhood Care and Education Teacher. Upon becoming the age of 60, she was informed by the Employer that she had come to her age of retirement, effective 1 March 2019. The Employer contended that Ms Rampersadsingh had never been an untrained assistant/aide which therefore exempted her from working to age 65. The Employees/Workers challenged the Employer before the Industrial Court on the issue of the recognised retirement age within the Employer’s organisation. The Employer argued that the termination of the Employees/Workers was as a direct result of effluxion of time (i.e. expiration of a pre-determined period) and not a dismissal; that there were no written terms and conditions of employment that treats with terminal benefits for the employees/workers; and that each of the workers were not terminated in circumstances that were harsh or oppressive. In the absence of its own policies relating to retirement benefit/compensation, the Employer stated it was guided by a policy of the Ministry of Education. The Employer relied on the Ministry of Education National Policy on Early Childhood Care and Education 2005, Standards for Regulating Early Childhood Service (White Paper). The issues before the Industrial Court therefore concerned the lack of terms and conditions with retirement benefits for the Employees/Workers, and whether this lack of benefits is in keeping with good industrial relations practices. In TD 288, TD 201 and TD 202, the Industrial Court found amongst other things that, first, the Employees/Workers are entitled to terms and conditions of employment in accordance with good industrial relations practice. Second, in the absence of terms and conditions it is for the court to determine what retirement benefits are to be apportioned to the Employees/Workers. Third, the Industrial Court has jurisdiction under Industrial Relations Act Chapter 88:01 section 10(3) to make/determine these benefits. The Employer appealed the three decisions of the Industrial Court to the Court of Appeal. The appeals were heard together on 2 December 2024. On 21 March 2025, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. The majority (Boodoosingh and Henderson JJA) allowed the appeal in part and ordered that the matter be remitted back to the Industrial Court for reconsideration of the issue of quantum. Rajkumar JA in dissent recommended that the Industrial Court judgments be set aside. The Employer now appeals to the Privy Council.

Date of issue

25 November 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top