Govt disdain for the Industrial Court

Jamille Broome writes a weekly column for the Newsday. 

The Industrial Relations Act (IRA) is binding on every employer, except, apparently, the chief personnel office and by extension the Government.

Needless to say, government ministries and agencies are without a doubt the most exploitative of workers, which not only illustrates a level of callous disdain for the public sector workforce, but also for the jurisprudence of the Industrial Court.

The IRA, the Industrial Court and the Registration, Recognition and Certification Board collectively – albeit unfortunately – remain the only mechanism in place to offer redress to wronged workers and justice to bullied employers. The Industrial Court was created to hear and determine trade disputes based on what “it considers fair and just... in accordance with equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case before it, having regard to the principles and practices of good industrial relations.”

In essence, the Industrial Court has the statutory authority to eschew legal principles when delivering judgements in order to establish a body of guidelines called “good industrial relations principles and practices” towards fostering good relationships between employers and workers along with their respective trade unions.

Good industrial relations principles and practices are not law, but carry the weight of it in regards to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. Employers are expected to follow these principles and practices lest they be subjected to the seemingly arbitrary and ad hoc decisions of the Industrial Court. For the most part, private sector employers who are familiar with these principles and practices really do attempt to conform to the guidelines established by the Industrial Court, but in the public sector, little – if any – attempt is made to abide by the jurisprudence that has been developing since 1965.

Government ministries and agencies act with impunity in their treatment of workers, resulting in a daily reel of trade disputes involving the state or other statutory or state-owned bodies. Just last week, both the Office of the President and Office of the Prime Minister were at the Industrial Court defending unfair suspension and unfair dismissal claims, respectively. Suffice it to say, when good industrial relations practices are not being adhered to at the highest levels of government, expecting anything better at the lower levels is plain naiveté.

Naturally, one would expect that with a minister and Ministry of Labour available to provide advice to the Government, practising good industrial relations would be second nature, but even the Ministry of Labour has had its fair share of unfair and wrongful dismissal claims. And the ministry is not the only culprit as even organisations like the Integrity Commission and Equal Opportunity Commission have pending matters in this jurisdiction.

Additionally, the minister has had a chequered past in relation to following good industrial relations practices as an employer, when she was at the helm of the Public Services Association during the period where the organisation was on the losing end of the most ever trade disputes brought against it, including a well-referenced case on the “right to be heard” after a PSA worker was wrongfully dismissed (BIGWU v PSA - TD 15/2000).

More recently, as a result of the termination of several OSH inspectors in 2016, her ministry’s actions are being called into question. Flowing from the OSH dismissals is the fact that the Industrial Court has laid down clear principles regulating contract employment, but every pronouncement of the court on fixed-term employment is regularly flouted by Government actors.

The disrespect shown to the Industrial Court by the state and its bodies is astounding, but even more so is the amount of tax-payers’ dollars the Government has had to pay out for settlements and damages. Well, that is if the payments are ever made because, for example, in BIGWU v Donna Cox for Laventille East/Morvant - TD 6/2011, damages are yet to be paid to the worker despite the court’s order.

A cursory calculation of settlements and damages in the past couple years has seen that figure easily surpass $10 million. And therein lies the difference between the private and public sector approaches to industrial relations; only for the former is the financial implication personally palpable. Without accountability, and with government subventions at their full disposal, there is no financial liability to ministers, members of Parliament, chairmen, CEOs, HR practitioners and permanent secretaries who dismiss public sector workers without any regard to the Industrial Court’s rulings.

The system of labour law (industrial relations) is a hodgepodge of contradictory policies and schemes that needs to be banished, but when the Government is the main exploiter of the existing system, reform remains a distant reality.

Jamille85@msn.com