Why Ancel Roget is right

Last week, Ancel Roget, current president of the Joint Trade Union Movement, made a statement, as the voice of his organisation, which he said represents somewhat less than 20 per cent of the workforce in TT overall.

He announced at a media conference on the steps of the Office of the Attorney General that his organisation had, and I quote: “reported the Government to the International Labour Organisation, asking it to reform our legislation."

And he has a point. Most of our labour legislation was passed back in the mid-1900s, in a different environment, when legislation was pre-independence and environmental circumstances were very different. The ILO rules he refers to were not even ratified before 1963.

TT’s obligations referred to at the time of ratification under our ILO membership include ten articles which outline the rights of both workers and employers to "join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.”

Rights are also extended to the organisations themselves to draw up rules and constitutions, vote for officers, and organise administrative functions without interference from public authorities.

There is also an explicit expectation placed on these organisations. They are required, in the exercise of these rights, to respect the law of the land.

In turn, the law of the land "shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention."

Finally, article 9 states that these provisions are applied to both armed forces and police forces only as determined by national laws and regulations, and do not supersede previous national laws that reflect the same rights for such forces. Article 1 states all ILO members must give effect to the following provisions:

Freedom of association

Article 2 – “Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.”

Article 3 – 1. Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.

2. The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.

While Mr Roget was not specific on what violation of the membership obligations of the ILO he was reporting our government for, I thought from what he said that it was for the most sacred of these obligations which are, first: freedom of association, and second: protection of the right to organise, as he tied his accusation to a demand for changes in our labour laws.

He is within his rights to make such a report, as he perceives the violation to exist. Indeed, as a trade union leader and part of a tripartite organisation established by Government, chosen by his peers to represent their views, it is his obligation to do so.

Further, it is a tribute to the constitutional right he has as a citizen of TT to express those views and to report them to whatever international body he chooses.

The convention was ratified by TT in May of 1963, which means that our government agreed to ensure it was passed into law. And it has done so.

Not all countries have ratified it and not all countries allow, by law, such reports to be made. The US has not ratified that convention, but then it has not ratified a convention prohibiting children under the age of 16 to be drafted into the armed forces, either. Although it does not happen de facto, it is still allowed under the laws of some states de jure. There are still many de facto and de jure practices that go on under the wire, so to speak, in the conduct of industrial relations all over the world.

In a not dissimilar manner, our labour laws do not allow people not included under the definition of "worker" to be represented by trade unions for the purposes of collective bargaining. People considered to be managers, for example, are not so allowed, but as most people know, more grievances, disputes and power struggles arise between managers and managers in any organisation than between workers and managers.

But managers are exempt from taking their disputes to the free Industrial Court. Only those defined as workers and represented by a registered trade union have that right.

I have not seen the recommendations he has made to what he refers to as "this package of legislation,” so I cannot comment on it, but he does make the assertion that why the trade union movement membership leaves out, by his own estimation, over 80 per cent of the workers in this country “is not because they don’t want to join, but because the joining procedure is too cumbersome.”

I am not sure which of the joining procedures he wants to change, as absolutely anyone has the right to join a trade union who is over 16, according to Section 22 of the Trade Union Act (which I admit is a restriction, but I doubt that is the one he refers to).

Mr Roget, however, is specific in that he names the legislation, saying he wants to get "a change in the current construct in the Industrial Relations Act.” He is asking the Government, the largest employer in TT, to do so in order to protect all workers, presumably including its own workers (and I quote again) “from being exploited by the merciless hands of their employers.”

I have no remit to defend the Government as an employer, but I did have a neighbour, now deceased, who was employed by the Ministry of Works for 39 years, always as a casual labourer, never made permanent. No benefits went to his wife when he died. I doubt any private-sector employer could have got away with that.

So, I have a certain amount of sympathy with what Mr Roget is asking for, and I acknowledge Mr Annisette's endorsement decrying the bureaucracy and the politicisation of government's placements on state boards. As I recall, he was the only man I knew who sat on several such boards himself as well as being a government senator at the same time. So he must know whereof he speaks.