The Editor, Sir:

Over the last four weeks, I have heard politicians, radio and TV commentators, trade unionists and even employers, making the statement that "collective labour agreements" in particular as they relate to public servants, are "legally binding contracts".

Settled law

For the record, generally speaking, the law does not recognise such agreements as contracts, simply because the law of contract requires four ingredients, one of which is missing in their agreements. Contracts require (1) an offer (ii) acceptance (iii) consideration and (iv) the consideration must move from one party to the contract of the other party. In the case of collective agreements item (iv) is missing in that the consideration (increased wage, etc) does not move from the employer to the union/association/federation, but to the employee. This is settled law except where the parties have clearly stated that the agreement should be considered a binding contract and the terms and conditions have been implemented.

Basic principles

It should be noted that in recognition of the basic principles, special provision was made in the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act to make awards of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal legally binding.

I am surprised that the "legally binding" statements are being made by government ministers, trade unionists, lawyers and employers, as to my knowledge, persons in all four organisations know that it is not true.

Finally, it should be pointed out that under every labour law, except one (The Maternity Leave Act), the definition of worker/employee does not include persons engaged to the Government of Jamaica, the KSAC or any parish council.

Trade unions should be guided accordingly.

I am, etc.,

ROBERT P. D. BAUGH

Kingston 6