Private Power Operators Ltd v Industrial Disputes Tribunal and 2 others (Jamaica)

Under Jamaica’s Labour Relations Code, the duty to consult about redundancies has no fixed starting date. The potential need must, where possible, be raised fairly and squarely while the union can contribute meaningfully to exploring alternatives. If redundancies become necessary, consultation must address minimising hardship. Notification after the decision is effectively made is too late.

The Code requires adequate consultation about selection criteria, but not agreement on those criteria. A pre-existing collective agreement remains relevant, and criteria cannot be silently excluded. An error of law requires remittal only if it affected the decision or the same outcome was not inevitable without it. The appeal was dismissed because the consultation and selection findings independently supported the awards.

Nine employees of Private Power Operators Ltd were dismissed in June 2013 after the unions gave strike notice. The Minister referred two disputes to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal under the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal found the dismissals unjustified because redundancy consultation was inadequate and the employee-selection process was unfair.

Fraser J dismissed the company’s judicial review claim in [2018] JMSC Civ 124. The Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed the further appeal in [2021] JMCA Civ 18. Before the Privy Council, the company challenged the consultation and selection findings and sought remittal because the Tribunal had relied on Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had erred in law and whether any error affected its awards.

The Board unanimously advised His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. The awards were not remitted.

1. Redundancy consultation. Section 11(ii) of the Labour Relations Code prescribes no fixed period for consultation. The potential need for redundancies must, if possible, be raised fairly and squarely with the union while it can contribute meaningfully to exploring alternatives. If redundancies become necessary, section 11(iii) requires consultation directed to minimising hardship. The Board upheld the finding that the correspondence before 19 June 2013 was not consultation about redundancies. By the time the unions were clearly informed, the decision was effectively a fait accompli and consultation was futile.
2. Selection criteria. It was common ground that the Tribunal had erred in relying on Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156. English authorities were not transposable to Jamaican industrial relations, and Compair was not authority for a requirement that selection criteria be agreed with the unions. It supported, at most, consultation about the criteria. The Tribunal’s operative finding was that no adequate discussion occurred before selection. The selection matrices were prepared after the unions were first properly informed, and the performance criterion in clause 20 of the collective labour agreement was marked not applicable without discussion. The dismissals were therefore independently unjustified.
3. Procedural and tribunal matters. A complaint that the Tribunal adopted an unfair process could not properly be raised for the first time before the Board; it should have been raised in the judicial review proceedings. The Board also explained that University of Technology, Jamaica v Industrial Disputes Tribunal [2017] UKPC 22 concerned the Tribunal’s original jurisdiction to consider later-discovered evidence, not procedural fairness. The Board bore in mind the Tribunal’s specialist expertise and the guidance in Special Tribunal v Estate Police Association (Trinidad & Tobago) [2024] UKPC 13; [2024] 1 WLR 4252 concerning neutrality and the prohibition on supplementing published reasons.
4. Remittal. The applicable common-law test, stated in Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1988) 57 P & CR 306 and confirmed in Public Service Commission v Richards [2022] UKPC 1, asks whether the unlawfulness affected the decision or whether the same result was inevitable without the error. The Compair error did not undermine the Tribunal’s conclusions. The more stringent approach discussed in Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 AC 603 was distinguishable. No remittal was justified.

1. Privy Council. Appeal dismissed and the awards were not remitted: [2025] UKPC 7.
2. Court of Appeal of Jamaica. Appeal from Fraser J dismissed in [2021] JMCA Civ 18.
3. Supreme Court of Jamaica. Judicial review claim dismissed by Fraser J in [2018] JMSC Civ 124.
4. Industrial Disputes Tribunal. Two awards found the dismissals unjustified and ordered reinstatement or compensation.