High Court rules on worker recognition dispute

Hall of Justice -

The High Court has ruled that the Registration Recognition and Certification Board (RRCB) acted unlawfully when it determined that a former manager at the Regulated Industries Commission (RIC) was not a “worker” under the Industrial Relations Act (IRA).

Justice Devindra Rampersad delivered the decision on November 7.

Justice Rampersad granted an order of certiorari to quash the RRCB’s July 10, 2023, decision and directed it to reconsider the matter, taking into account the Regulated Industries Commission Act, Chapter 54:73, which distinguishes between the commission’s upper management and other employees.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay the claimant’s legal costs, to be assessed by the Assistant Registrar if no agreement is reached.

The Sanctuary Workers’ Union and Helen Peru brought the judicial review claim against the RRCB after it found that Peru, who served as manager of human resources and administration from August 2017 to August 2018, did not meet the statutory definition of a worker. The Ministry of Labour had previously referred the dispute over her 2018 termination to the RRCB for determination.

In the claim, Peru and the union argued that the RRCB failed to properly apply the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act and the RIC Act. They also argued that Peru did not exercise policy-making authority, nor did she hold an executive role.

Attorneys for the two also contended that the RIC’s statutory framework clearly separated commissioners and the executive director, who are responsible for policy formulation, from employees like Peru, who carried out administrative functions under direction.

The attorneys insisted that Peru could not be considered “as anything but a worker for the purposes of the IRA,” and her duties required approval by an executive director or the commission, and she could not create or implement policy without direct instructions.

“The second claimant did not enjoy the same compensation package and/or perks which are enjoyed by executive directors and therefore cannot properly be placed in the same category of employee as the executive directorship.

“The Regulated Industries Commission is a creature of statute…When the provisions of the statute are examined closely, the apportionment of policy formulation could only be found within the upper tier of the administrative structure (commissionership and executive directorship) and therefore could not lawfully be assigned to the second claimant,” the lawsuit said.

The attorneys argued that the RRCB’s interpretation was unreasonable and contrary to law.

Kiel Taklalsingh, Kristy Mohan, and Keron Ramkhalwan represented the union and Peru. Chelsea Downes, Avion Romain and Evanna Welch appeared for the RRCB.