
Orville W. Taylor "CHO!" I am forced to comment because the trade unions have stated that they will not be "abiding by the findings" of my colleague and friend, Dr. Noel 'Dadda' Cowell, concerning the impact of the Employment Termination and Redundancy Payment Act (ETRPA).
Perhaps the quotation was poor reporting (then again it was not this newspaper), because I don't know what it means to "abide by findings." One either accepts or rejects findings. Anyway, the lesson today is not grammar.
The Minister of Labour has offered an olive branch to the unions, attempting to make peace with them. I was unaware that there was a war but if they and the Jamaica Employers Federation (JEF) (also a trade union), believe they can do without the ministry they are mistaken. Judging from the recent treatment of the United Nations, there is a simple logic that says that you can't debase an integral institution in the system and then expect it to protect or assist you. Countless times in my experience the Ministry has rescued the unprepared or clueless trade unionist who went to a meeting to face nemeses such as "The Iron Lady" or the brilliant but de-frocked lawyer. Similarly, hapless employers have had to be protected in many ways. Oftentimes, I bit my tongue and resisted the temptation to say "leave and return when you are ready! Ignorance is to be cured not flaunted." You see readers, in my lectures I usually tell my students that Industrial Relations is about "tact and controlled hypocrisy." This is especially so for conciliator/mediators. Well, now is not one of those times, so "I am going to mash some corns."
INADEQUATE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SYSTEM
Whatever the source of the bad-blood, the majority of the trade unionists who deride the ministry helped to create this inadequate industrial relations system, designed to serve them, the Ministry and JEF but not the average worker. It is a poorly-bred 'mutt and JEF system'. In 1974 the ETRPA was passed and flawed from the beginning; it did not limit lay-off periods until 1986 after it was exposed by the Samuda v. Prendergast case in 1985.
Then there is the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA) of 1975, whose weakness was revealed in 1985 when the West Indies Yeast case showed that it was only designed to accommodate disputes by unionised workers. Since then my protestations that it be amended to allow dismissed non-unionised workers (80 per cent of all employed workers), to have access to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT), the only 'court' able to reinstate them, were ignored. While I suspect why the Ministry might not have been interested in my recommendations, the unions have no excuse because this was publicised in three UWI conferences between 2000 and 2001, in the full audience of some of the very trade unionists who are attacking the Ministry.
Whoever were the unionists on this Labour Advisory Committee (LAC), the last amendment of Section 2 of the Act could only have passed while they slept. When the proposed 2002 amendment was in draft I critiqued it and even heard the derisive comments of a colleague unionist who did not turn off his 'mike' while we were on a talk show together. (Leaf don't rotten the same day it drop ina water.) It was argued that it was myopic and would not protect workers since it did not provide access to the IDT. Furthermore, labelling contractors who worked under certain conditions 'employees' was pointless since the word 'employee' did not appear in the Act.
UNPROTECTED WORKERS
Looking at the data surrounding the dismissal of unionised workers over the past decade one finds a clear trend towards their declining. This figure fell from 71 in 1992 to 38 in 2002. In contrast, similar complaints by non-unionised employees skyrocketed from 437 to 2,380. Clearly, the masses of unprotected workers are increasing in numbers and they have no recourse because the IDT was not designed to accommodate them. This gap in the system is untenable especially in an epoch when international labour standards are not directly enforceable and countries are involved in a 'race to the bottom' (this is not my term) by lowering theirs.
In an era where social justice is under siege I am unsure of the minister's motive in commissioning the study by Cowell (mi glad him a eat a food still!). Yet, the data from the ministry's own Statistical Bulletins show an increasing number of workers being victimised despite the ETRPA. The unions suggest that he is 'Dalley-ing' around the issue but I won't go so far. However, as I said on August 22, 2004, it offers little protection to workers and if amended it should provide more than it does (Read it again!).
Anyway Minister, hopefully you mean what you say and won't tinker with the rights of workers under the Act. Take my sociological advice, the Commission investigating matters after the Morant Bay Rebellion pointed to the need for social justice and "tribunals for the settlement of labour matters". Those who only pay attention to the 'bottom line' do not have the insight that you are getting free. It is naive to think that worker protection is unrelated to crime. Many workers are only 'one step away' from the gun and only the 'likkle wuk' prevents them from joining the hordes of criminals. Any attempt to compromise workers rights could create such an eruption not even a miraculous prayer from the Reverend 'Ivan' Miller could prevent it. On the matter of crime, the government has announced 'Operation King Fish'. Because of my recent scrutiny I don't particularly like that last word. However, although some of my colleagues suggest it is 'redundant' since it is a re-hashing of an earlier version. I am watching to see.
Dr. Orville Taylor is lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at the University of the West Indies, Mona.