‘Overhaul industrial relations laws’ amid investor, worker concerns

Barbados risks undermining its appeal to investors and eroding worker confidence unless urgent reforms are made to the island’s industrial relations laws, two prominent labour and legal experts warned on Monday.

Kamisha Benjamin, deputy director of industrial relations at the Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU), and attorney-at-law Kristin Turton, a consultant on the national labour code reform team, outlined urgent changes needed to modernise labour dispute resolution and strengthen institutional authority during a panel discussion hosted by the Barbados Employers’ Confederation.

Both professionals made clear that Barbados’ industrial relations landscape is at a crossroads. With mounting frustrations among workers and legal bottlenecks stifling resolution, they stressed that legislative reform is no longer optional but imperative.

Benjamin said delays and inefficiencies in the conciliation and tribunal systems are undermining trust and emboldening bad-faith employers.

She cautioned: “When the processes that are in place in terms of labour [are] not functioning as it should, it impacts all of us in Barbados.”

She pointed to the lack of enforceable timelines in conciliation as a major contributor to prolonged disputes, urging the introduction of “statutory deadlines for each stage of the conciliation process”.

“The initial meeting within seven days of referral, for example. Completion of conciliation within 30 days, those kinds of things. And like I said, not just having timelines, but timelines that have consequences where they’re breached,” she insisted.

Benjamin also advocated giving labour officers more authority to arbitrate straightforward cases such as unfair dismissal or wage claims, arguing that current limitations are being “weaponised by rogue employers”.

“It is my view that the lack of powers and the lack of resources are being weaponised,” Benjamin said. “I think it is high time that we give them the power to make certain decisions. You can alleviate the burden at the tribunal and expedite resolution.”

Her third recommendation focused on technology.

“The implementation of digital case management systems… could encompass online filing, automated scheduling, and real-time updates,” she said, noting this would reduce backlogs and improve transparency.

Turton echoed Benjamin’s concerns and called for the Employment Rights Tribunal to be granted more teeth. “They need to be empowered, one, to award costs… where a case is really destined to fail… you should have to pay the cost of the other person,” she said, targeting time-wasting and frivolous claims from either side.

She added that the tribunal should also be able to award interest in cases where delays are caused by parties, not the system. “That is an important consideration,” she said.

Crucially, Turton called for greater discretion in compensation awards.

“Right now, there is a power only to award a specific basic award, and that cannot be reduced,” she explained. “We need to be able to make adjustments… if there’s been a loss that an employer has suffered… then we are going to reduce the award accordingly.”

In her view, the current structure also prevents employers from counterclaiming against employees-even in cases where the worker has caused financial loss or breached contract terms.

“There’s no facility through the tribunal for that to be set off,” she said.

She also highlighted the need for procedural clarity: “The tribunal itself should be able to evaluate at an early stage whether it has jurisdiction at all to hear your case.”

On the legislative front, Turton recommended amending Part A of the schedule under the Employment Rights Act.

“The challenge with doing that is that Part A is framed in terms that speaks exclusively to conduct and misconduct,” she explained. “It does not apply to incapacity, redundancy, or some other substantial reason.”

She proposed widening the language to provide “clarity to employers and employees about what is to be expected so that their rights can actually be protected”.

Turton’s final recommendation targeted flexibility for small businesses. She called for adjustments to the Employment Rights Act, whistleblower protection laws, data protection and minimum wage statutes to “take into consideration smaller businesses and create tiers for compliance”.

She added: “Identifying, for example, minimum numbers of a business for certain provisions to apply to them… if you have fewer than 10 employees, if you have more than 100 employees.” (SZB)