Successorship

When BWIA pretended to close on 31st December 2006, the only things that were not transferred to Caribbean Airlines Limited (CAL) were the workers and Union recognition. In reality, it was a massive union-busting exercise.

Of the four Unions recognised in BWIA, only the Communications, Transport, and General Workers Union (CATTU) made an application to the Industrial Court for successorship. It took from 2007 to 2017 for the matter to finally reach a conclusion with a judgement in favour of CATTU.

In its Application to the Industrial Court, CATTU sought a declaration that CAL is the successor employer to BWIA and that its Certificates of Recognition No. 97 and No. 98 of 1976 are valid ...

On 4th October 2017, the Industrial Court gave its decision in case GSD-A009/2017 ...  

"44. It is the ruling of this Court that CAL as the successor to BWIA, is constrained by the provisions of Section 48 of the Act to recognise the Union as one of its Recognised Majority Unions and to honour the terms of the registered collective agreement between the Union and BWIA.

45. We further rule that Certificates of Recognition Nos. 97 and 98 of 1976 are binding on the Parties. The rights of the Union and that of its members are uninterrupted, therefore the successor employer, CAL, is duty bound to honour these rights.

46. It is hereby ordered that Caribbean Airlines Limited do recognise the Union as the Recognised Majority Union of workers of the respective bargaining units for which Certificates Nos. 97 and 98 of 1976 apply.

47. We so rule."

The Recognition Certificates give details of which grades are covered in each Bargaining Unit.

Caribbean Airlines (CAL) has resisted union recognition at every turn. One of the reasons why the Industrial Court matter took so long (it started in 2007!!) is that, in the words of the Court, "... been a number of interlocutory hearings and a ruling on a preliminary point by the Court of Appeal before the commencement of the actual hearing."

CAL lodged an Appeal against the Industrial Court judgment. After CAL filed their submissions, Douglas Mendes, SC, and Imran Ali filed a Reply on behalf of CATTU. 

The hearing took place on 16th June 2023,  and the judgment was issued on 22nd April 2024. The Appeal was dismissed, which means that CAL lost,  and basically, the decision of the Industrial Court was confirmed with one variation:

"Having heard the arguments of Senior Counsel for CAL and for the Union respectively, we accepted the observation of both Senior Counsel that the expired collective agreement was deemed to continue only in respect of portions concerned with the avoiding and settlement of disputes as contemplated by section 48(2) of the IRA. Having regard to this observation, we are of the view that the first order of the IC ought to be varied to reflect the provision of section 48(2). We otherwise hold that the IC had not made any error of law so as to invest the Court of Appeal with the jurisdiction contemplated by section 18(2) of the IRA."

The Industrial Court's decision was that CAL was required to "honour the terms of the registered collective agreement between the Union and BWIA". The Court of Appeal varied the Industrial Court Order to limit the expired collective agreement those portions "concerned with the avoiding and settlement of disputes as contemplated by section 48(2) of the IRA". 

In practical terms, this means that none of the old collective agreements (which expired in 1998) has survived, with the exception of the part that required the parties to follow agreed-upon procedures in processing trade disputes. 

For information, this is section 48(2) of the Industrial Relations Act.

48(2). Notwithstanding section 43(1) the terms and conditions of a registered agreement shall, in so far as they relate to procedures for avoiding and settling disputes, be deemed to continue to have full force and effect until another collective agreement between the parties or their successors or, in the case of an employer, assignees, as the case may be, has been registered.

Anyone actively involved in unions knows that it is not easy. BWIA had four recognised unions, one of which was a breakaway from one of the other unions, and there was a further attempt at a split from that union.

The key question for workers is: what will give us the most strength in dealing with the employer. 

Numbers are important because that gives more power when negotiating with the employer. But numbers also provide a better financial base for the union to operate. Running a union costs money! 

NAWU's view is that, with the exception of pilots, there should, ideally, be only one other union in CAL. That's not to say there should only be one bargaining unit. Flight attendants are a good example of a clearly identifiable group and could form a bargaining unit. 

Unity is strength is not just a slogan - it's the reality of industrial relations and collective bargaining.