Balford Henry, Senior Staff ReporterWe would love to applaud the progress made in terms of Labour Market Reform (LMR). These reforms should pave the way for an improved industrial relations climate to take advantage of the "level playfield" we are pursuing in current globalisation negotiations.
But the fact is that whatever progress is being made, offers little hope for any serious improvement in relationships, much less to mobilise the country to take advantage of world trade opportunities.
The most crucial problem facing the labour/employment sector now, however, is that of the proposed flexible work week.
The proposal is so important that it had to be separated from all other LMR proposals and is being dealt with solely.
A working group comprising persons representing the industrial relations tripartite - Government, trade unions and employers - has had an initial look at the possibilities, but its report was not promising enough.
This has led to the tabling of a Green Paper in the House of Representatives by Donald Buchanan, Minister of Labour and Social Security, encouraging much wider and intensive participation in the discussions.
He has the backing of both the Jamaica Employers' Federation (JEF), representing the employers, and the Jamaica Confederation of Trade Unions (JCTU), representing the trade unions, but he certainly does not have the support of the church, a challenge which he has to take very seriously.
The churches are concerned that there are negative implications for their members contained in the proposals. They fear that an extension of the work-week from five to seven days would seriously undermine Christian traditions.
In fact, Princess Lawes, the spokesperson for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, has contended that church members are already being discriminated against in terms of employment and that flexible work-week arrangements would further exacerbate the situation.
Basic point
The churches want the Government to restrict the flexible week to five days and keep Saturdays and Sundays sacrosanct. The employers say that it is the Government's job to protect the right to worship.
Mr. Buchanan says that the Government has no intention of legislating days of worship. The trade unions say that a flexible week limited to five days wouldn't be flexible enough to make sense.
That is the basic point at which those discussions were stalled at the level of the Joint Select Committee (JSC) of Parliament, which is hearing submissions on the proposals in the Green Paper.
However, when the JSC last met on March 13, Gleaner columnist Martin Henry raised two points which have stabbed at the heart of the process the minister has been employing.
According to Mr. Henry, the "tripartite" discussions which preceded the Green Paper and which informed the proposals, represented only a small percentage of the people affected.
"The Jamaica Employers' Federation represents a small percentage of the total number employers. The trade unions represent no more than 10-12 per cent of all workers," he said.
He pointed out that the entry of the churches into the discussions, "has brought a far broader constituency of interest to the debate, the largest organised constituency in the country in so far as the various denominations can speak to an issue with one voice."
Mr. Henry was also concerned that the Government is playing an "activist" role in support of the proposals, instead of balancing the interests.
"The role of the third party, Government, in the tripartite arrangement should be to balance the interests of all concerned, not only in this matter, but also in all other matters requiring legislative intervention," he said.
"The 'activist' role of the Government, fully committed to the introduction of flexible work arrangements, raises the issue of fair treatment for opposing positions," he added.
No doubt Mr. Henry's points are legitimate ones and could possibly be the position of most Jamaicans. What does that mean for the tripartite positions and Parliament? Will they simply ignore those points and press on?
Two weeks ago Mr. Buchanan steered several amendments to the Labour Act through Parliament, which are fundamental to LMR.
I have already made the point, that after seven years of discussions, starting with a Government-appointed committee on Labour Market Reform in 1995 headed by Dr. George Eaton, the most important LMR measures were simply put on hold and the status quo allowed to continue, because there was no consensus at the tripartite talks.
Two crucial issues put on hold were:
The right to strike (or not to strike), which would have dealt with wildcat strikes by workers and sudden lockouts by employers; and
Decertification of trade unions which are non-performing.
A third, the granting of discretionary powers to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) to decide whether workers adjudged to have been "unjustifiably dismissed" should be ordered reinstated or compensated, continues to haunt the process.
An attempt was made by the minister to also put on hold, the fourth crucial matter, the definition of "who is a worker", under the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA).
But the determination of the National Workers' Union, albeit in its own recruiting interest, to have the definition widened to include contract workers resulted in probably the most important LMR measure settled so far.
While conceding that some of the amendments, especially that giving the minister the right to refer matters to the tribunal even in cases where no union is involved, are vital, those which were left on the discussion table were, without a doubt, the most fundamental.
The IDT's role
Another area of controversy which has been emerging in the sector is that of the role and performance of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, a matter raised consistently by Herbert Lewis, president of the JEF.
The JEF is strongly of the view that there is a need to review the criteria for appointments to the tribunal.
The federation believes that IDT members should have an appreciation of economics, accounts and the way business is operated, "since too often some awards are made which leaves one with the view that the members of the tribunal are devoid of any understanding of business."
Also, it suggested that for apparent health reasons, some members of the tribunal "have been demonstrating a deficiency in their span of concentration and therefore miss important points when submissions are being made at the IDT."
The unions and the employers seem to be on the same wave-length in terms of the need for upgrading the IDT, but the issue has been clouded by JEF's criticism of several recent IDT awards which have favoured the trade unions.
Clive Dobson, president of the National Workers' Union, believes that the good relationship which had developed between the employers and the trade unionists over the years, has been damaged by the employers' reaction to several recent awards, especially two reinstatement awards involving NWU members at the Jamaica Flour Mills.
He suggested that many employers have been displaying a "blatant disregard" for the IDT in the process.
Dwight Nelson, vice president of both the Jamaica Confederation of Trade Unions and the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union, agrees that there is a problem with the way members are appointed to the IDT, but does not think that this is the grave issue.
According to Mr. Nelson, while there is a problem in terms of the age of the people being appointed to the IDT, that is mainly due to the fact that the persons nominated by the trade unions and the employers are retired professionals, while those appointed chairmen by the ministry are usually pensioned civil servants.
Upgrading
He thinks the solution is for the tripartite committee to nominate more active persons to the panel.
However, he says that the crucial problem is that in order for the IDT to be effective, it will need an upgrading of its support services, including obtaining a more modern system of recording minutes, as well as the availability of advisers in areas such as economics and law.
The issue is such a serious one that it took up most of the time at last Thurday's meeting of the Labour Advisory Committee.
The fact is that with so many crucial issues left behind in the LMR process, the IDT will have to play a very important role in resolving disputes arising from these sources.
In order to do the job it needs the personnel and the support services. This is the least that can be expected now.
