The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – A Fair Retrenchment

The impact of job loss is tremendous. The loss of a job is never easy, even if it is expectedUnexpected job loss has an even greater emotional impact on us…. For both men and women, job loss will reflect on our personal value. It may be argued that we put too much value on the external image of a job and not enough on the internal dignity of being a human being. Yet, it is hard to see or feel dignity when your source of income is removed. There is no simple solution; a job loss WILL cause stress. Many researchers rank the stress of job loss with Post Traumatic Stress (PTS) found in combat.

Life Challenges Website

The corrosive effects of job loss on the individual, especially where that termination is at the initiative of the employer, are too well documented in the relevant literature to bear repetition. Since this phenomenon implicates the dignity and autonomy of the person, it is quite natural for the State to intervene in the process to ensure that fairness and justice prevail in so momentous an undertaking. It may thus be a useful analysis to compare the locally prescribed procedures for termination with those that obtain in the currently ongoing retrenchment in the public sector.

Mass retrenchment or redundancy as part of a restructuring of the workforce appears inevitable in a process of economic transformation. While our nobler instincts of people- centredness and social welfare considerations may demand that retrenchment be perceived as a last resort after all other alternatives have been explored, considered, analyzed and rejected, the law recognizes that there may be circumstances in which retrenchment of workers becomes the most effective option.

To this end, there are two parts to the stipulated process. First, that there must be agreement reached through good faith bargaining between the relevant parties, namely the workers’ organization or the individual employees and the employer of the need at all for the proposed retrenchment. And while it is accepted that the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2012 do not bind the State qua employer, it still provides, in my opinion, cogent evidence of best practice in regard to the retrenchment process.

According to section 31 (1) of that statute, a dismissal is not to be considered unfair if it is owed to redundancy and the prescribed procedure has been followed. Insofar as liability to retrenchment is concerned, the analogous private sector requirement provides, where relevant, that redundancy of the employee arises “where the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind…have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish”.

Where the reduction in the workforce is anticipated to be significant, the employer is also expected to provide the employee, or workers’ organization where there is one, and the Chief Labour Officer with a written statement of the reasons for and the other particulars of the dismissal.

Sub-section 5 provides for what should be contained in the statement, including the facts supporting the situation of redundancy, the number and categories of employees likely to be affected and the period during which their dismissals are likely to be carried out.

As is the case with all collective employment, the employer is required to engage in good faith negotiation or consultation with the certified bargaining agent on behalf of the workers. The essence of the obligation is to negotiate in good faith, hopefully to reach agreement.

It is mandated that these consultations commence not later than six weeks before any terminations and that they be in respect of (i) the proposed method of selecting the employees who are to be dismissed; (ii) the proposed mode of carrying out the dismissals; and (iii) any measures that the employer may be able to take to find alternative employment for those who are to be dismissed and so mitigate for them the adverse effects of the dismissals. Provision is also made for the circumstance in which it is found impracticable to comply with the stipulation as to commencement of the consultations.

Of course, I am not at all privy as to the detailed circumstances in which the current retrenchments were carried out and it is acknowledged that the legislation referred to herein is not directly binding on that process, although as I have observed above, it might be indicative of best practice in this context, given its intendment to comport with principles of fairness of termination of employment. These embody a concept that is directed towards preserving the dignity and autonomy of the employee who, through no fault of his or her own, is forced to face the ineluctable stress that accompanies sudden joblessness.

Rigorous and faithful adherence to the statutory process by the relevant parties would have at least scotched any suggestions that the process was tainted by indirect gender discrimination through the selection of the class of stenographer/typists for retrenchment or that there was direct status discrimination through the selection of lower level employees only. It would have lain ill in the mouths of the workers’ organizations to condemn a process and its outcome in which they had fully participated and agreed to as prescribed.

Most jurisdictions provide for a terminal payment to those employees in the private sector who are dismissed for redundancy to tide them over the immediate consequences of job loss. The workers’ organizations would also have had a role to play in this calculation in light of their statutory entitlement to be consulted on a purposive interpretation of “any measures that the employer may be able to take to find alternative employment for those who are to be dismissed and so mitigate for them the adverse effects of the dismissals”.

There may arguably be legitimate questions raised as to the inequality of the bargaining power of the respective parties to the process and as to whether the retrenchment solution was entirely voluntary or whether it was mandated by circumstance or conditionality. These go the issue of governance on both sides of the equation and it would certainly be in the public interest if these concerns were promptly and openly addressed.

80 comments

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ Bush Tea at 9 :33AM

    You are back on track. Writing like a properly trained economist. I am on the same wave length. Stick to the Dismal Science ,do.

    By populists democracies Jeff means governments that are elected by picking themes that resonate with a large marginalized section of the Electorate. Hitler was a populist leader. The real Mugabe was a populist leader. Mandela was a populist leader; but he never instituted populists programs.

    Did Brazil and Venezuela suffer because of populists policies?

    Like

  • It is noted that not one of them ever address the mountain of backlogged CIVIL CASES in the Supreme Court going back DECADES or say what is going to be done about any of them….then they all expect us to take them seriously when we know they are all on shit and playing games with the people’s lives.

    http://www.loopnewsbarbados.com/content/chief-justice-more-criminal-lawyers-needed

    “There is a backlog of pending cases in the courts and one of the reasons for this, according Chief Justice Sir Marston Gibson is the lack of lawyers practicing in the field of criminal law.”

    Like

  • @Miller

    If the problem has been identified what can we do about it? We know that many studying law are not necessarily pursuing a LEC.

    Like

  • Forgot to add that Justice Gibson should be ASHAMED to say this after being at the Supreme Court for at least 10 LONG YEARS…and STILL he speaks about a BACKLOG…this highlights his inability to reduce the backlog, which tells us he will be there another 10 years and will STILL be. talking about a backlog..at the Court…

    …I repeat…he could not be that ineffective a Judge in NYC and still have a job.

    Like

  • Mr. Ellis, you should listen to the recording of the last Brasstacks Sunday program. OCM is a publicly traded company, not a privately held company, and its programs should always be conducted in a professional manner. It is inexcusable for one guest to be intentionally obnoxious to another when on any of OCM’s programs. If one desires to be intentionally obnoxious on air, one should create a privately held radio station.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s