Addressing growing IR challenges

Over the weekend, I ran across an article in the local press that contained some very interesting industrial relations statistics.

The reporter, in a well-written article, focused on an interview with Sabina Gomez, a former chief labour officer – a position that requires both knowledge and skill.

Gomez has since retired, so it is pretty safe to assume that one can trust in the accuracy of her statistics. And it means they have implications far beyond the figures on the paper.

To begin with, she points out that by her reckoning there are "roughly" 45 active trade unions currently reporting trade disputes.

The reporting requires someone to deal with a dispute on behalf of a registered trade union at a time when International Labour Organisation (ILO) statistics report a 40 per cent drop in union membership in the Caribbean.

We are told that only ten per cent of the workforce in TT are dues-paying members of trade unions.

This reflects a negative variance from the 1950s and 60s, when half a dozen unions were the foundation of political parties, so powerful that legislation, including the Industrial Stabilisation Act, was drafted to curb and regulate their power.

I have worked with many of the 45 unions and seen several of them change from reactive, battle-oriented organisations to serious professional bodies with officers trained by the Cipriani Labour College and, more recently, UWI law faculty graduates.

It brings to mind the statement by Sir Isaac Hyatali that his Industrial Court under the Industrial Stabilisation Act was not primarily a court of law but a court of human relations.

That orientation is still reflected in today’s legislation, which distinguishes itself from criminal and civil law by stating, "In the hearing and determination of any matter before it, the court may act without regard to technicalities and legal form and shall not be bound to follow the rules of evidence stipulated in the Evidence Act."

Ms Gomez is quoted as saying the majority of labour disputes are over termination and a cautious diminution in new employment in the public sector that was hitherto regarded as a sure job basket, especially with elections on the horizon, much to the despair of the Finance Minister and the Auditor General, trying to keep costs down and the national budget within stable limits.

She is not the only one, with the shortage of foreign exchange available to SMEs (small- and medium-sized enterprises) – the ones who were able to offer employment in the workforce at entry-level clerical, sales and support-staff positions to new school-leavers. They are now having difficulty finding employment, and, at her estimate, may cost an employer between $60,000 and $100,000 if their employment is challenged.

Jurisdiction, however, has changed. There are discernible differences among terminations. There are wrongful dismissals, unfair dismissals, summary dismissals, bilateral terminations and fixed-term terminations – they are not all the same.

Ms Gomez is quoted as saying, "It is not always the employers’ fault."

Interesting implication there – "not always" implies "usually" – but it is the employers’ business to make sure that if they decide to go to the court, due process was followed.

"Otherwise the candle would cost more than the funeral." That is sound advice.

It is worth the investment to ensure those in charge of a business or "the effective control of a whole or any department of any undertaking of a business" know the distinction between wrongful and unfair dismissals and how to avoid either.

Ms Gomez does not expiate on unfair or wrongful terminations in the public service, presumably because as a public servant for 40 years it did not come within her remit, but she does deal with the medical industry and the steady flow of personnel from the medical community – both doctors and nurses, trained, I note, at the expense of the state, migrating to better-paying jobs in the industrialised countries.

Referring to nurses: "They told me they do not want to migrate, they want to stay here…The main complaint was the shift system where they are forced to work an extra shift if someone does not show up for duty and they do not get overtime."

Something is wrong here. The Minimum Wages Act, Chapter 88:0, which is still the law in this country, authorised by the Law Review Committee states in schedule two, page 43: "Overtime wages for all workers. For overtime worked beyond eight hours on a working day, the first four hours – one and a half times the hourly rate. The second four hours...two times the hourly rate. Thereafter...three times the hourly rate."

It looks like there is a fairly simple and eminently legal way to keep our much-needed nurses at home if that is indeed where they wish to stay.