ON November 8, the Special Tribunal of the Industrial Court delivered a final judgement on a matter involving the Estate Police Association (EPA) and the Central Bank of TT (CBTT). The two parties were embroiled in the collective bargaining process since December 2015 for the three-year period January 2015-December 2017.

At the conclusion of the process, the parties agreed on several issues but four critical articles, including the issue of salaries, remained outstanding. Several months later, the parties met with a conciliator at the Ministry of Finance in a last attempt to reach a settlement on these articles but without success. As a result, the matter was referred to the Special Tribunal.

Regarding salary negotiations, the tribunal would have heard that the EPA initially requested a 17 per cent increase while the CBTT offered eight per cent. These figures were later revised during conciliation to 14 per cent and nine per cent respectively.

Through their lawyers, both parties presented arguments to the tribunal citing evidence regarding the state of the economy and the ability of the employer to sustain these increases. However, in adjudicating the matter, the Special Tribunal disagreed with both parties.

Stating that "a demand of 14 per cent as advanced by the association or even an offer of nine per cent put forward by the CBTT are...unreasonable and unsustainable," the tribunal ordered a mere six per cent increase in salaries for the three-year period at two per cent for each year.

This egregious ruling illustrates quite well why trade unions are generally very hesitant and apprehensive to have matters involving salary negotiations referred to the Special Tribunal. Indeed, in almost 60 years of its existence, the tribunal has never once ruled in favour of a trade union in its quest for better salaries. Without fail, it always takes the side of the state, cognisant of its draconian powers.

Why is this? Perhaps it is because the Industrial Court, of which the Special Tribunal is a branch, was established under the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) and is not under the purview of the Chief Justice. As such, it essentially operates as a law unto itself.

Perhaps it is because "the power to reappoint all judges of the court, with the exception of the president," is vested effectively in the cabinet, which advises the president on who should be reappointed. So, if Industrial Court judges do not appease the state, then they could be unceremoniously removed since they have no tenure.

This arrangement brings into sharp focus the independence of the court and by extension the Special Tribunal. Even the Law Association is on record calling for a new system of judicial appointments to the Industrial Court.

While some would argue that the Special Tribunal traditionally supports the fiscal conservatism of the state simply based on economic considerations, it is unlikely to be so in this particular case as the ruling of the tribunal was not merely against the EPA, but also against the CBTT.

The impli