JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Monday, July 14, 2025

Court denies Petrotrin an extended injunction

by

20140207

Petrotrin has failed in its at­tempt to ex­tend its in­junc­tion against the Oil­fields Work­ers' Trade Union (OW­TU), to stop union mem­bers from en­gag­ing in protest ac­tion at the state-owned oil and gas com­pa­ny.In dis­miss­ing the ap­pli­ca­tion yes­ter­day, pres­i­dent of the In­dus­tri­al Court Deb­o­rah Thomas-Fe­lix said the court did not think it was nec­es­sary as the com­pa­ny had not brought any fur­ther com­plaint against the union since the in­junc­tion was grant­ed in March last year.

She al­so stat­ed that the com­pa­ny failed to con­vince the court that it will suf­fer ir­repara­ble dam­age or ir­re­deemable prej­u­dice if the in­junc­tion was not ex­tend­ed. Petrotrin was grant­ed the in­junc­tion in March, af­ter the union en­gaged in a week of protest at the com­pa­ny's Op­er­at­ing Fields and Pointe-a-Pierre Re­fin­ery over an es­ti­mat­ed $145 mil­lion in vari­able pay, for the pe­ri­od 2009/2010, which the union claimed is owed to them.The com­pa­ny claimed that the protest ac­tion had cost the State al­most $700 mil­lion in loss­es in one week.

As a re­sult, the com­pa­ny claimed that it could not pay any bonus to work­ers as it had not made a prof­it dur­ing that pe­ri­od.The com­pa­ny ap­plied for the ex­ten­tion, af­ter the in­junc­tion ex­pired, two weeks ago.The in­junc­tion formed part of a sub­stan­tive com­plaint against the OW­TU un­der Sec­tion 63 (1) of the In­dus­tri­al Re­la­tions Act for tak­ing strike ac­tion which was not in con­for­mi­ty with the Act.In her oral judg­ment, Thomas-Fe­lix not­ed that the com­pli­ant was yet to be de­ter­mined and had been de­layed by Petrotrin's ap­pli­ca­tion.

She said that an in­junc­tion from the court was un­nec­es­sary as the com­pa­ny has a statu­to­ry guar­an­tee that the union will not en­gage in protest while the com­plaint was be­ing de­ter­mined.Thomas-Fe­lix said if the union was found to breach this, there were penal­ties un­der the In­dus­tri­al Re­la­tions Act, that would be ap­plic­a­ble.She al­so ad­vised the com­pa­ny's at­tor­neys that if they chose to ap­peal the court's de­ci­sion on the is­sue while the in­dus­tri­al re­la­tions com­pli­ant was de­ter­mined by In­dus­tri­al Court, it may be deemed pure­ly aca­d­e­m­ic.

In­dus­tri­al Court judges Al­bert Ab­erdeen, Kyril Jack and Nizam Khan, al­so sat on yes­ter­day's pan­el.Se­nior Coun­sel Rus­sell Mar­tineau, Ravi Khan and Al­lis­ter Khan rep­re­sent­ed Petrotrin while An­tho­ny Bul­lock ap­peared for OW­TU.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored