TRIBUNAL RULE CHANGE

THE Court of Appeal’s president is urging that the Industrial Tribunal’s rules be reformed such that all parties have “greater flexibility” to amend their original pleadings within the limits set by the ‘trade dispute’ originally referred to it.

Sir Michael Barnett made the call in a unanimous verdict where the Court of Appeal reinstated a claim by Marisa D. Mason-Smith, now the University of the Bahamas (UoB) ombudsman but then an assistant general manager for human resources and training at Bahamas Power & Light (BPL), against her former employer over alleged pension benefits she claims she is entitled to.

The Industrial Tribunal dismissed her action on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as the issues and causes raised in Ms Mason-Smith’s originating application claim did not include the grounds on which the case was referred to it by the minister responsible for labour as a trade dispute.

However, in overturning the Industrial Tribunal verdict and sending the matter back for a new hearing on “what, if any” pension benefits she is entitled to, Sir Michael suggested that its rules be amended to address the problems that were raised.

“We observe that many of these issues may be resolved by amending the Industrial Tribunal Rules to permit both an applicant and a respondent to amend his originating application and/or defence save that any amendment ought not exceed the parameters of the ‘trade dispute’ which was originally reported to the minister under the Industrial Relations Act,” Sir Michael suggested.

SIR MICHAEL BARNETT MARISA MASON-SMITH

“The proposed amendment which we envisage would allow for greater flexibility and enable the parties to amend their pleadings... provided that the referred dispute to be adjudicated by the Tribunal is clearly shown on the amendment to be ‘connected with the employment or nonemployment or the terms or conditions of employment of any person’. This would enable a general dispute about termination to