Thorne slams Gov’t over labour Bill; AG says law on solid ground

Opposition Leader Ralph Thorne blasted the government on Tuesday in his maiden speech since crossing the floor from the government benches in the House of Assembly, declaring a proposed labour law an assault on constitutional rights that legislates punishment of business.

He called on the Mia Mottley administration to revisit a “curious” Labour Clauses (Concessions) Bill, suggesting that it could be trespassing on a legal hotbed that paves the way for confiscating property and allowing government ministers to act “unlawfully” by “punishing” citizens.

The Act, which was passed later in the evening, establishes minimum employment terms and conditions for employees who work for businesses that receive government concessions and allows for the suspension of concessions for enterprises that do not comply with the framework legislation.

Thorne, a senior counsel, warned the House of Assembly that the Bill stood on “shaky legal ground”.

While praising Minister of Labour Colin Jordan for his “passion” and attempts to mediate the historically tense relations between capital and labour, he suggested that it may be useful for him to take further advice from the Attorney General.

“What this legislation promises to do is to deprive employers of property given to them by another minister,” said the Christ Church South MP. “A concession given may be in the nature of property.”

The newly-sworn opposition leader said that just as Jordan conceded that the reference in the original legislation to tax returns had to be removed because this was considered “property”, the same may be said for a tax concession, which may be considered a “promise”.

“Under the Constitution of this country, the State cannot, will not, must not confiscate the property of citizens,” Thorne said in an impassioned speech.

The former government backbencher who crossed the floor late last week said he wholeheartedly supported workers’ rights, the government’s responsibility to protect them and the minister’s commitment to mediate the fight between capital and labour.

But he pointed to the government’s acknowledgement that the legislation was erroneously purporting to confiscate property from Barbadian employees with its original reference to tax refunds.

“We accept the concession that an error was made and we accept that there is a withdrawal of the portion of the Bill,” said Thorne. “Even after that deletion is made, what is a tax concession? I ask the minister, after consultation with the Attorney General – government’s chief legal advisor – is a tax concession [not] property? What is the basis for its survival in this legislation? If you say that the tax refund is property and you withdraw it from this legislation, let us ask the same question in relation to a tax concession.”

Urging his parliamentary colleagues to “let all ideas contend” – invoking an oft-stated saying of the prime minister’s – Thorne said a call for respect for the law is not synonymous with a statement against the interest of workers.

“It is not that we speak against the interest of workers, it is that we speak in defence of the law in this country, the law that must regulate relations between all citizens,” he insisted.

Thorne said the Bill’s provision for the removal of concessions from firms taking public money if they violate labour standards would violate Section 16 of the Constitution which protects the citizen from the government depriving any person of his property.

He also accused the government of promoting a trend of bringing legislation that gives ministers powers they do not have under the Constitution. He referred to Jordan’s contention at the start of the debate that he and Minister of Tourism Ian Gooding-Edghill had hoped that they would not have to continue to introduce the legislation.

He said this “apprehension” against bringing legislation that gives ministers the right to “punish” is questionable under the Constitution.

“I suggest that that doubt leaves us to conclude that perhaps there is trespass made against Section 16 of the Constitution of this country,” said the veteran attorney.

He also urged the labour minister to consider whether the Bill treads on the court’s jurisdiction in adjudicating matters and gives ministers new power.

“The legislated right to punish, this is what is happening in Barbados,” Thorne said in his interpretation of the Bill. “If I deem you a rogue employer, I will punish you. If I consider you are in breach of some labour law, I am giving myself the right to punish you. I challenge the right of any minister to have the right to punish the citizens of this country. We have a highly-sophisticated court system and when a minister assumes the power to punish he is usurping judicial functions.”

In its current form, Thorne concluded, the concessions law would make provision for the Minister of Labour to recommend to the Minister of Tourism, who grants concessions to the hotel industry, to withdraw concessions if the employer is determined to be in breach of the law.

In response, Attorney General Dale Marshall said he was satisfied that the government was “on good ground” with the Labour Clauses (Concessions) Bill before Parliament.

He suggested that Thorne had interpreted the legislation “poorly”.

“The honourable member for Christ Church South has tried to argue all kinds of legal theory and I enjoyed it. I am not going to be drawn into a debate on constitutionalism and rights. If the honourable member wants to do that, there is a place for that. It is called the law courts,” the AG said.

“I am not going to get in here and trade sections of this Act and sections of that – Acts that he clearly has not read . . . because if he had read them he would not have engaged in any of that dialogue that he engaged in today.

He read it this morning and read poorly. He snatched some legal theories out of the air and tried to throw them into the Chamber.

“I have never heard such a disgraceful red herring in my life and personally, I feel insulted.”

Marshall disclosed that Minister Jordan had approached him on the legislation and he had given his nod for him to proceed with it, saying “carry on my brother, we got this”.

“But the member for Christ Church South feels there is a problem with it. He’s a lawyer, he knows where he can take it and he will spend all of his time trying to find out who is biased and who is not . . . . What he had to say in the Chamber is, ‘I have nothing against the workers but I believe that this Bill should not pass. I am sorry to disappoint the member for Christ Church South, because this Bill is going to pass with resounding votes . . . .I dare him to call a divide and say to the workers of Barbados ‘I do not support this Bill which is intended to guarantee you fair treatment, decent treatment, fair wages and conditions’.

“There are some moments in history that very few of us get to be a part of . . . . This is a watershed moment, this is one of those moments in history and I am proud to be able to stand in this Chamber and for all time to be counted as one of those who were here but also one of those who will say ‘aye’,” Marshall declared.

The Bill was passed.
(SP/BT)