What about us?

Business owners want redress when workers quit without notice By Emmanuel Joseph Employers in Barbados are asking the Government to make labour laws less lopsided and have proposed several changes, including ensuring business owners can seek redress when workers quit their jobs without giving notice as legally required. Executive Director of the Barbados Employers’ Confederation (BEC) Sheena Mayers-Granville made the disclosure in an interview with Barbados TODAY as she outlined several recommendations her organisation has submitted for inclusion in planned amendments to the Employment Rights Act (ERA). Minister of Labour Colin Jordan said in May that an amended ERA is expected to go before Parliament shortly. Describing some pieces of labour legislation as one-sided, she said that while the ERA requires dismissed employers to compensate employees in lieu of notice, companies don’t get “a cent” when workers fail to give adequate or even any notice when they submit resignations. “There is nothing for an employer, nothing…and we are seeing an increase in that happening, of persons leaving without giving their contractual notice,” the BEC head said. The employers have also proposed that the amended Act should empower the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) to reduce the reward to workers who contribute to their termination. “Currently, the Employment Rights Act makes provision for remedies should an employee be unfairly dismissed. However, where an employee has contributed to their dismissal, there is no provision for the reduction in monetary award. Such an amendment referred to as ‘Contributory Fault’ allows for the compensatory award to be reduced because the claimant’s conduct contributed to the dismissal,” Mayers-Granville said. The BEC also wants changes to Section 31 of the legislation which requires a consultation period of six weeks before redundancy takes effect when 10 per cent of the workforce is impacted. The business sector wants the legislation to provide for a minimum number of employees rather than a percentage. “A 10 per cent is a single person for a small employer. How are you going to tell somebody that has three employees that they have to consult for six weeks in order to let go one? It is impractical given the size of the organisation. The legislation currently speaks to 10 per cent, so we are saying that they should still have a minimum number,” she contended. “We agree that it is appropriate for legislation to provide a minimum threshold before consultation is legally required, and [we] propose that it be set at ten employees. This will not prevent employers from consulting when less than ten employees are affected. However, it will reduce the burden on small employers and may allow more practical consultation timeframes,” the head of the employers’ body added. Businesses are also unhappy with the current provisions in the Act for dealing with disciplinary matters and are requesting amendments. “The requirement for the progressive application of disciplinary action, which ranges from a verbal warning to a dismissal, and the employee’s right to natural justice are embodied in parts A to C of the Fourth Schedule and Section 29, respectively, of the said Act. Section 29(4) & (5) of the said Act articulates, inter alia, that a dismissal cannot be procedurally fair without the convening of a disciplinary hearing (meeting) unless a summary dismissal was invoked,” Mayers-Granville pointed out. “The question that then arises is: Are disciplinary hearings required to impose disciplinary action which is less serious than a dismissal? There continue to be issues such as heightened levels of antagonism and administrative time and effort to coordinate meetings with employees and their representatives, predominantly legal counsel, for discipline that is ironically often not intended to go beyond a written warning. “We recommend that some minor infractions can be handled on appeal, especially when evidence is easily verifiable, for example, excessive sickness or absenteeism,” the BEC top official suggested. She said members are also urging the Government to change related legislation to make them consistent across the board. The BEC Executive Director cited certain provisions in the Employment of Women (Maternity Leave) Act and the ERA as an example of inconsistencies. “Under Section 3(3) (b) of the Employment of Women (Maternity Leave) Act, Cap. 345A, a pregnant employee is only entitled to three (3) confinements from the same employer. However, section 6(1) (c) of the Employment of Women (Maternity Leave) Act prescribes that an employee shall not be dismissed or forced to resign due to her pregnancy; and section 30(1) (c) (x) of the ERA provides that it shall be automatically deemed as unfair to dismiss an employee on the basis of her pregnancy,” she declared. Employers also want the three Employment Rights Tribunal panels to meet regularly, even at the same time. They have told the Government this would speed up the process but it would also require substantial manpower and other resources. “The NIS Severance Tribunal is a good model to emulate and it may be possible to examine whether manpower resources are currently available at the Labour Department or in the general public service,” Mayers-Granville contended. The BEC is in consultation with the Government concerning other labour-related issues, including proposed changes to the National Insurance Act, the Protection of Wages Act and minimum wages. Mayers-Granville expects talks on the NIS legislation to be concluded within another three months and the Protection of Wages legislation in about a year. However, she was not willing to hazard a guess as to how long the review of minimum wages would be. emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb ]]>