The dispute between the parties is over the failure of the parties to agree on the second collective agreement over the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the company.

The case was first heard by the former learned president of the Court who has since retired and two panel members one of whom has also retired. The company at the previous hearing made a preliminary objection on the ground that the parties have in fact concluded a collective agreement but only failed to deposit the said agreement for cognizance under s. 16 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It contended therefore there was no more dispute. The Court handed down Award No. 212 of 1994 dismissing the preliminary objection. It held inter alia that the company and the union have not concluded the 2nd collective agreement as a number of items (i.e., retirement benefits and heat allowance) have yet to be finalized. The Court also held that since the alleged collective agreement was not deposited with the Court and Court had not given its cognizance under s. 17 of the Act it cannot be deemed to be an award and shall not be binding on the parties.

The parties did not object to me as Chairman of the Court and the new panel member continuing with the hearing of the case in place of the former learned president and panel member who had retired.

The parties have agreed on the following items: Article 1 Parties To The Award Article 2 Objectives Of The Award Article 3 Duration, Modification And Termination Of Award

Only item (b), (c) And (d). Article 4 General Scope And Recognition Article 5 Recognition Of Company Article 6 Recognition Of The Company Article 7 General Understanding Article 8 Procedure For Alleged Breach Of Agreement Article 9 Arbitration Article 10 Leave On Trade Union Matter

Item (b) agreed Article 12 Joint Consultation Article 13 Grievance Procedure Article 16 Employment Article 17 Promotion Article 20 Attendance Article 22 Working Hours Article 29 Funeral Benefits Article 35 Disability Article 36 Maternity Benefits

The Court hands down consent award on these item.

The Court heard the submissions of learned Counsel and had perused their written submissions on the disputed items and the Court hand down its award as follows: 1. Article 3 - Duration, modification and termination of award

a) The first issue to be decided here is whether this award shall take effect from the date of the award or it should be back-dated to 1 January 1993 considering that the 1st collective agreement was for the period from 1 August 1989 to 31 December 1992. Section 30(7) of the Act allows an award to be retrospective but in a case such as this it may not be earlier that six month from the date on which the dispute was referred to the Court. This dispute was referred to the Court on 9 November 1993. Therefore to comply with this section the award cannot be back-dated earlier that 9 May 1993. In the circumstances the Court's award is that this award shall be retrospective to 1 Jun 1993.