The Labour Tribunal v St. Lucia Electricity Services Ltd

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Blenman JA,‘Pereira CJ’
• Judgment Date: 08 April 2020
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2020] ECSC J0408-2
• Docket Number: SLUHCVAP2019/0002
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 08 April 2020

[2020] ECSC J0408-2

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE Chief Justice

The Hon. Mde. Louise Esther Blenman Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Paul Webster Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

SLUHCVAP2019/0002

SLUHCVAP2019/0003

Between:

The Labour Tribunal

Appellant

and

St. Lucia Electricity Services Limited

Respondent

Heard Together with

Between:

[1] The Labour Tribunal

[2] Saint Lucia Civil Service Association

Appellants

and

St. Lucia Electricity Services Limited

Respondent

Appearances:

Mr. Seryozha Cenac, Senior Crown Counsel for the First Appellant

Mr. Thaddeus Antoine for the Second Appellant (The Interested Party in the court below)

Mr. Dexter Theodore, QC with Ms. Diana Thomas for the Respondent

Civil appeal — Statutory interpretation — Labour Act of Saint Lucia — Age of retirement — Section 159 of the Labour Act — Interpretation of section 22 of the Labour Act — Whether section 159 of the Labour Act increased retirement age from 60 in employees' Private Pension Scheme to 65 as prescribed by the National Insurance Corporation Act — Whether learned judge erred in interpretation of section 22 of the Labour Act — Whether purposive construction should have been applied to section 22 of the Labour Act — Long title as aid to interpretation — Whether respondent contractually bound to increase age of retirement in the Private Pension Scheme to 65 on basis of harmonisation with the National Insurance Corporation Act

The respondent, Saint Lucia Electricity Services Limited (“LUCELEC”) by letter dated 2 ^nd February 2016, wrote to Mr. David Rodgers (“Mr. Rodgers”) concerning his retirement under the company's Private Pension Scheme (“PPS”). Mr. Rodgers challenged the calculation of his pension and appointed Mr. Barthelmy Fedee (“Mr. Fedee”) to represent his interests. LUCELEC was subsequently informed by the Labour Commissioner that their policy of retiring employees at age 60 violated the labour legislation. In response, LUCELEC requested that the matter be referred to the Labour Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). This referral was done by the Minister by letter dated 4 ^th April 2017.

The Tribunal, having heard the matter, concluded that the Labour Act (“the Act”), which provides in section 159 that the pensionable age is deemed to be 65 in accordance with the National Insurance Corporation Act (“the NIC Act”), applied to all employees including those who were in LUCELEC's employment before 1 ^st August 2012, the day the Act came into force. Accordingly, LUCELEC was bound to retire those employees at 65 rather than the retirement age of 60 in their PPS.

LUCELEC, aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, filed a claim for judicial review seeking a number of orders on 10 ^th October 2018. The learned judge, having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties found in favour of LUCELEC and quashed the decision of the Tribunal; granted a declaration that the retirement age for employees who entered service prior to 1 ^st August 2012 who are subject to LUCELEC's Grade 1 PPS is 60; and granted a declaration that LUCELEC had no obligation to make future contributions to the PPS on behalf of those said employees.

The Tribunal and the Saint Lucia Civil Service Association (“the Civil Association”) (or collectively, “the appellants”) are dissatisfied with the decision of the learned judge and have filed a number of grounds of appeal against the judge's reasoning and conclusion. The issues that arise for this Court's determination are: (i) whether the learned judge erred in the construction of section 22 of the Act and consequently in concluding that section 159 does not increase the retirement age for the employees; and (ii) whether the learned judge erred in concluding that the PPS was not harmonised with the NIC Act.

Held: dismissing the appeal; and making no order as to costs:

• 1. It is settled law that Acts of Parliament should be construed according to the intention expressed by the words used. Parliament, the legislative branch of the government, is responsible for enacting, amending and repealing the laws of its respective states. It is this branch that reflects the collective voice of its people. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the statutes are seen as the citizens' collective expression. It follows then that the words actually used in the legislation are most critical and every effort must be made to give effect to them. The courts therefore cannot enquire into Parliamentary wisdom when interpreting any part of a legislation.

• 2. The fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is that where the words, in their natural and conventional sense, are clear and unambiguous then they must prevail. Section 22 creates two tiers. Section 22(1) provides that any valid contract that was in existence before the Act, continues to be valid and enforceable. Subsection (2) then goes on to provide that that same valid and enforceable contract shall, to the extent that it is not in conflict with the Act, be deemed to be made under the Act. The logical inference is that these pre-existing contracts continue to be valid under subsection (1). The legislature in drafting subsection (2) chose very careful words and deliberately crafted that subsection to protect and preserve the pre-existing contracts. The appellants' argument that where a contract is inconsistent with the Act, then it is deemed to be invalid and unenforceable cannot stand in the face of the pellucid and unambiguous wording of section 22. Accordingly, the retirement age of the employees continue to be 60 in accordance with the provisions of the employees' private pension scheme in their employment contracts. The learned judge did not err in so concluding.

  Sussex Peerage Case (1884) 8 ER 1034 applied; Duport Steels Ltd and others v Sirs and others [1980] 1 All ER 529 applied; Smith v Selby [2017] CCJ 13 (AJ) applied; Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 not followed.

• 3. The interpretation of section 22 advanced by LUCELEC accords with the intent and spirit of the Act. Therefore, the argument that the learned judge directed his mind only to the literal approach which yielded an absurd result is moot. The learned judge could not have been expected to refer to all the principles of statutory interpretation. Instead, what he was required to do and which he had done was to address and apply the statute in the particular circumstances of the case. Contrary to the appellants' position, the learned judge's reliance on the literal approach was not to say that the other rules were excluded; but, that having applied the literal rule and there being no absurdity as a consequence of that application, there was no need to consider the other rules in any detail. Accordingly, the learned judge cannot be faulted for so holding.

  Rowell v Pratt [1938] AC 101 considered.

• 4. Though a long title can play a valuable interpretative role in resolving any ambiguity in the body of the Act, it is subsidiary to the plain meaning of enacting parts. In other words, where the section in question is clear and unequivocal, then where a contrary interpretation is reflected in the long title, the latter cannot prevail. In the circumstances of this case, the appellants' reliance on the long title does not take their case much further since it also acknowledged the “existing local standards” which include both the existing contracts which provide a private pension, and which section 22 has sought to protect and the existing Pensions Act which provides a public pension alternative to the NIC pension.

  R v Galvin [1987] QB 862 considered.

• 5. There is no doubt that the learned judge quite properly analysed and evaluated the evidence before him in arriving at the conclusion that the PPS was not harmonised with the NIC Act so as to increase the retirement age to 65. This evidence included the actuarial report which advised how the NIC increases would impact the pension scheme and the witness statements of Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Fedee which contradicted the argument that LUCELEC, by its conduct, harmonised the PPS with the NIC Act. There was nothing before the judge on which he could have properly concluded that there was an inextricable link between the PPS and the NIC Act with corresponding legal implications. Accordingly, there is no basis on which the learned judge's reasoning and conclusion can be assailed.

Introduction

Blenman JA

1 This is an appeal against the judgment of the Honourable Justice Smith (“the learned judge”) delivered on 18 ^th December 2018, on a claim for judicial review by the Saint Lucia Electricity Services Limited (“LUCELEC”) against the decision of the Labour Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The Tribunal ruled that LUCELEC was bound to retire the Grade 1 employees who entered into employment prior to 1 ^st August 2012 (“the employees”) at age 65 contrary to the contractual provisions of their Private Pension Scheme (“PPS”) in which the retirement age is 60. The learned judge quashed the decision of the Tribunal and granted declarations that the Grade 1 employees are subject to the provisions of the PPS and further that LUCELEC is not obliged to make future contributions to the pension scheme on behalf of the said employees.

2 The Tribunal and the Saint Lucia Civil Service Association (“the Civil Association”) (or collectively, “the appellants”) are dissatisfied with the decision of the learned judge and have filed a number of grounds of appeal against the judge's reasoning and conclusion. Essentially, the appellants seek to impugn the learned judge's application of the law and his conclusions that: (i) section 22(2) of the Labour Act (“the Act”) 1 does not operate to change the retirement age of 60 in the PPS to 65 in accordance with the National Insurance Corporation Act (“the NIC Act”) 2 and that LUCELEC was not contractually bound to implement the NIC...