The Court of Appeal has ruled that there is nothing in the Labour Relations Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA) to suggest that it is illegal for an employer to allow a worker to retain union benefits after acceptance of a promotion to a managerial position.

The ruling was made in an appeal brought by Holiday Inn Jamaica Inc against a Supreme Court ruling in favour of a former employee.

A dispute arose between Ava Chambers and Holiday Inn in 2002 when she was made redundant. She was paid $1.3 million, based on the formula prescribed pursuant to the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act. The regulations under that act provide for a minimum redundancy payment, while unionised employees of Holiday Inn would be entitled to redundancy payments in accordance with a more generous package.

Chambers claimed that the redundancy package paid to her was in breach of an oral agreement with Holiday Inn. She had worked with the company for 20 years, originally as a member of the unionised staff, and from 1992 to June 2002, as a manager. She said that upon becoming a member of the management team, she relinquished membership in the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union.

Managerial position

She said the company agreed orally in 1992 that promotion to a managerial position would be contingent on relinquishing her union membership. As part of the deal, she would retain entitlement to union benefits.

After she was made redundant in 2002, Chambers claimed the redundancy package paid to her constituted a breach of the oral pact, because it was not in keeping with the entitlement for unionised staff.

Chambers, who was represented by attorneys-at-law Andre Earle and Anna Gracie of the law firm Rattray, Patterson, Rattray, took the issue to the Supreme Court.

Agreement

Holiday Inn denied there was any such agreement and contended that even if there had been such a deal, it was illegal, and, accordingly, unenforceable.

The court was asked to determine whether there was an agreement which entitled Chambers to benefits previously held by her as a unionised member. Also, the court was to rule on the enforceability of the agreement by virtue of Section four of the LRIDA.

Justice Bryan Sykes ruled in February last year that there was nothing in Section four of the LRIDA which prohibited the alleged agreement. The judge awarded Chambers $1,462,681.90, which was the difference at the rate applicable to unionised staff.

Autonomous agents

In interpreting Section four of the LRIDA, the judge said, "what the law has done is to recognise that workers are free, autonomous agents who are free to join a union if they wish, or accept benefits from the employer in exchange for not joining a union. In other words, the union and the employer are free to use all legitimate means to woo the worker to their point of view.

"The worker, as a free, auto-nomous human being, can make up his own mind about what is in his best interest. He is not beholden to either the trade union or the employer. If he makes a poor choice, like all other free persons, he lives with the consequences."

The Court of Appeal, comprising Justice Seymour Panton, president, and Justices Karl Harrison and Dennis Morrison, heard Holiday Inn's appeal against the Supreme Court ruling and dismissed it. The court held that Sykes had correctly summed up the legal position regarding the LRIDA and it could find no reason to alter his findings.