The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – A Missed Opportunity for Reform

It is at least ironic that in debate last week on an amendment to the Employment Rights Act 2012 [ERA], the Honourable Minister of Labour, Mr Colin Jordan, should have excoriated some employers for treating their workers as self-employed in order to avoid responsibility for paying national security [NIS] contributions on their behalf and others for failing to recognize the trade union as the bargaining agent for their employees.

I write “ironic” because unlike many of our regional neighbours, Barbados has elected up to now not to place these matters effectively in the realm of legislation, where they would acquire some degree of notoriety and thus serve as cautionary tales or teaching lessons to local employers generally. Yet, there were our legislators in the process of debating an employment rights amendment bill, the most appropriate locus for these matters and enacting other provisions.

This is, of course, not to deny that the matter under immediate debate then was not of some importance itself. If the Employment Rights Tribunal, the body charged with the vindication of the rights of employees created under that Act and now having assumed subsequently added responsibilities in the areas of sexual harassment at work and holidays with pay, is to be fully competent to adjudicate the provisions of the Act; to award the possible substantial sums that may be ordered in some cases; and to enforce adherence to these awards, then the members must assume their roles with some degree of gravity.

The debated amendment will now require them to swear before the Governor General as follows-

I, …, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially fulfil the duties as a member of the Employment Rights Tribunal to the best of my ability in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Rights Act, 2012 (Act 2012-9). [Original emphasis]

The two issues raised by the Minister are, however, equally important to the rights of local employees themselves and arguably might have formed part of a comprehensive amendment of the ERA itself. After all, ever since its enactment, employer, employee and scholarly interests alike have identified matters concerning its provisions, apart from those mentioned in Parliament, which could aptly be the subject of amendment or reform.

Some of these are better suited to discussion in a technical study of the Act, but they bear mention, if not full analysis, here. For instance, the previous Minister had appeared to suffer some measure of understandable confusion as to the distinction between the ERA’s requirement in section 13 of the provision by employers to employees of a written statement of particulars and the desideratum of furnishing each employee with a written contract containing the terms and conditions of his or her employment. While case law has confirmed the difference between the two, the Caribbean Court of Justice, in a recent appeal from Dominica, favourably compared the latter requirement that is clearly more beneficial to the employee. It contrasted the legislation in Dominica that requires the provision of a contract of employment-

The Labour Contracts Act would have been hailed at the time of its passing, in 1983, as a progressive piece of legislation and, as will shortly be seen, it took a radical step in protecting employees’ rights. Its short title identifies it as an Act to make provisions whereby every employer is required to provide each employee within its application (operation?)with a written contract specifying certain particulars of his employment. Its purpose also included providing the contents of a basic labour contract. The basic approach of the Act is to provide that within 14 days of employing an employee, an employer must provide to the employee a written contract containing the basic terms on which s/he was employed; that if the employer failed to do this he committed an offence; and that to correct that failure the Act imposed upon the parties a basic labour contract, in the terms set out in the schedule to the Labour Contracts Act.”

with that of the English provision that we seemed to have copied-

In England, the employer was required to provide within two months of the commencement of employment, a written statement of specified terms but not a contract. As the updated legislation provides, if the employer failed to give this statement or it omitted the specified terms, the remedy the law provided was for the employee to complain to an employment tribunal to determine what particulars ought to be included in such a statement…”

According to Barrow JCCJ-

This very brief comparison is enough to bring home the realization that the Labour Contracts Act dared to do what the English legislation refrained from doing, which was to interfere with the hallowed English law concept of freedom of contract …”

Moreover, the local ERA has caused a theoretical confusion by its attempt to create a new form of wrongful dismissal upon the already existing common law concept; and the role of the Labour Office might also be reconsidered as a form of enhanced conciliation whereby parties may be advised if their claims have any chance of success at the tribunal hearing. This would not prohibit them from at all pursuing the matter, but it would be at their own risk of being liable for the costs of any unsuccessful hearing before the ERT.

So far as the two points specifically referred to are concerned, the first as to the nature of the employment has been legislated on to some extent; although the ultimate determination of whether the employee works under a contract of service [in which case NIS contributions would be payable on his or her behalf] or a contract for services [in which case they would be payable by the employee himself or herself ] has been expressly left to the courts. On this basis, in order for the treatment of the employee as employed under a contract for services to be legally impugned, the matter would have to be litigated under our law. The First Schedule to the ERA provides, after a catalogue of those indicia that might indicate employment under a contract of service-

Note: This list is not exhaustive, and the factors outlined are all elements in a balancing exercise to determine the nature of the contract. No one factor, therefore, is by itself conclusive, and the weight to be attached to any one of the factors is a matter for adjudication. [Emphasis mine]

With respect, simply asking employers “to cease and desist from that bad anti-worker practice” is not the way to arrest it; nothing short of a class action suit or condign legislation may suffice.

With regard to the second, Barbados has, for some unstated reason, elected not to enact legislation providing for the compulsory recognition of workers’ organizations as have many of the other jurisdictions of the region, preferring instead to rely on what is called custom and practice as if we existed in some pre-literate society rather than one that boasts of a sophisticated human resource that “punches above its weight”. In this regard, the reported words of the Minister are intriguing-“Once you operate in Barbados then you conform to the laws that are made (sic) here.”

In fact, on this particular issue, we have made none.

59 comments

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…don’t care what the deceitful ministers of parliament say or how many different times and ways they say it……….it is a damn duck..

    Like

  • Jeff after establishing the ERT with great fanfare we ignored the lacuna you have identified? Is there a ‘rationale’ you have identified in your probe of the matter?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Jeff

    Based on your experience when the Bills are being drafted isn’t part of the process to review similar pieces of legislation in other jurisdictions, especially in a he region to capture the nuances?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jeff

    Maybe I am wrong and in need of correction on this issue, but as I understand it the only way an employer can avoid pay contributions /NIS is if that employee is employed as a subcontractor … because I am assuming in Barbados at an employee’ initial stage of employment, he or she has to fill out what is called a W2?

    Like

  • Apparently it has become a common practice for employers to employ people on a contractual basis, to categorise them as “self-employed.”

    This relieves the employer from the “burden” of paying the 12.75% national insurance expense on wages and the “employee” becomes responsible for paying his/her NI contributions at the rate set for “self-employed,” which is 17.10%.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Artax

    And it is perfectly legal in America so we must assume that employers in Barbados are following America, since there isn’t anything as far as the law and is concerned to stop them.

    Liked by 1 person

  • An employer offers you a job, and he does so on a subcontractual basis …you have the freedom to take it or the freedom to walk away … Simple … It is the same concept of outsourcing work ….

    Liked by 1 person

  • Mr. Lexicon

    Did I “say” the practice was illegal?

    What we should be of more concern is under this arrangement, what happens to that “employee” if he is not encouraged to register with NIS as self-employed and cannot receive the respective benefits, if he sustains an injury on the job, becomes ill or his contract is not renewed…….

    ……..or in the unfortunate event of his death, his wife and children may be deprived of survivors’ benefits.

    Like

  • When dealing with employers you have to be thinking… I was looking for a job when I found this one. Because if the job that degrades you and eats away your self worth means that much to you by all means keep it .

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Jeff
    Could you do Bushie a small favour….?
    Can you cite ANY legislative example in Barbados which reflects basic common sense and efficiency of thought?
    …we surely have a few…

    A country’s laws reflect it’s moral, ethical and strategic compass.
    Our laws reflect nothing but illogical, pathetic confusion an apparent absence of thought.

    How can a minister in a government that continues to pursue FDI as a means of ‘success’…
    …seriously be expecting the new masters (to whom they are handing our assets) to subject themselves to OUR ‘laws’?

    Brass bowls who cannot stand on their own two feet CANNOT expect to establish ‘laws’ for those they depend on to feed them.

    Brass bowls….!!!

    Grass….

    Liked by 2 people

  • Artax

    I cannot speak for Barbados, but I have life insurance which covers me if I utilize all of my sick and vacation time if I am unable to work.
    And the cost associated with my life insurance comes directly out of salary biweekly, so maybe this is an avenue those who are subcontractually employed can look at in the future ….

    Liked by 1 person

  • Seems to me the law is deliberately designed to allow for confusion and a long drawn out legal process that ultimately results in injustice for the worker.

    As usual.

    Liked by 3 people

  • Lexicon,

    National Insurance is supposed to be insurance.

    Liked by 2 people

  • Mr. Lexicon

    That’s the reason why we have the National Insurance Scheme.

    Like

  • Wrongly posted in another stream

    Employers in England and Wales must offer a new employee a CONTRACT of employment within two month of starting the job. The contract must state the place of work, the job title, hours of work, salary, annual holiday and other terms and benefits. No to is illegal.
    As to the contract of service and contract for service, this issue is still going through the high courts. For years the BBC has been trying to avoid making the salaries of it high earners public by encouraging them to form limited liability companies and working through the companies. The tax man has rightly challenged this.
    The test must be where the person works, his/her duties and reporting, and where the most of his/her earnings come from. If to all extents and purposes the person is performing the functions of an employee ie a contract of service, then that person would be and should be treated as an employee.
    We cannot allow tax law to be used continually as a get out clause for professionals and high earners. Financial Times Group offers its new executives a 14-A four page list of benefits, ranging from child care, subsiding canteens, subsidising or paying in full children’s education costs, interest-free travel loans, etc. The one that used to kill me was the company paid 25 per cent and part of the telephone landline costs and 100 per cent of mobile phones. But the mobile phones were company phones and most people used their mobiles to make professional and private calls.
    The other one was entertainment cost. Some professionals knew the game. For example, if you asked a public servant for off the record background information, they would agree and arrange to meet at an expensive restaurant. While you looked through the file, they were ordering the most expensive drinks on the list. No skin off the reporters’ nose: they get their information and the public servant got a decent drink.
    I said all that to day that the lower down you are on the employment food chaining the less you get. Executives get company cars, petrol paid etc. They rarely touch their salaries. This is an area for immediate reforms.

    Like

  • Artax/ Donna

    I said I do not understand the employment laws of Barbados, so forgive my ignorance ….

    Liked by 1 person

  • Is the Employment Rights Tribunal working to satisfy the rights of employees? A look at the Ministry of Labour website suggest differently.

    https://labour.gov.bb/library/employment-rights-tribunal/

    Liked by 1 person

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ David BU at 10 :00 AM

    Good observation.
    That was one of the disruptive vehicles for reversing equality. The labour movement was not alert to the smoke and mirrors. Some people would have described it as progressive without examining the collateral fall outs.
    Or was it uncritical copying of other cultures’ legislation?

    Like

  • @Jeff, have you ever run a company and understand how some small businesses struggle to meet payroll and utilities. Do you understand Small Business are more compassionate when it comes to laying off persons? You cannot want persons to set up companies then expect them to pay decent wages unless they going employ Haitians and Guyanese. NIS rates is a big bear to many small companies who want to do the right thing.

    Like

  • What Colin Jordan and the other ministers should be doing is going after their friends in the DLP rather than protect them. To continue to tax we ass to oblivion is very disheartening of Mia and her 29 cohorts. I do understand she does not have equity for her hands and others in her Cabinet may not be clean. Next she gine start back eavesdropping on we phones and emails #MiaMugabeMottley

    Like

  • SirFuzzy (Former Sheep)

    Would it be too hard for employers at the get go to inform the candidate as to which type of employment contract is being proposed. This way the candidate may refuse or accept, but with the full knowledge of the different scenarios regarding the paying of NIS etc

    Like

  • Have existing employee contracts been reissued to comply with the employee rights legislation?

    Like

  • SirFuzzy (Former Sheep)

    If the sub-contract becomes the mode of operation/employment in the near future, how will the govt ensure that the individual complies and fulfil his tax and contribution to the respective government agencies BRA and NIS etc. I have heard that with the lowering of the corporate income taxes it may more worth wihle for high earners to incorporate themselves and by so doing lower their tax exposure.

    Now if sub contracting become the de-facto norm of employment contract and with lower corporate taxes will this lead to less revenue from taxes into government? Maybe higher personal incomes taxes?

    So will government still provide us with “free” health care and the many other social services we and some of us need to survive on this rock? I can see the quicker introduction of user fees and other such revenue measures. The question is will these revenue measures improve the delivery of the social service? We it be a way of paying for the the delivery of less than adequate social services etc.

    We are paying for waste & garbage collection, but few will shout about the improvements. There have almost been none. I can remember a twice(2) a week collection by the SSA in my neighbourhood going back for years.
    Now, I am paying and maybe i will see and hear the SSA vehicle 4 or 5 times in a month. So tell me what am i getting with the introduction of user fees or paying at the point of delivery for a govt service.

    Now imagine the legalisation of MJ adding to the already over burden and possible under funded social services we need in some cases to live and in some cases survive.

    My My we are building a bridge to somewhere we may not want as a destination really fast. And it does not look like Hope is a destination on anyone radar/lidar.

    Liked by 1 person

  • How will lowering the corporate tax rate impact the environment unless they are making money?

    Like

  • SirFuzzy (Former Sheep)

    @ David January 20, 2019 1:47 PM

    For some high earners like certain proffessionals, they may choose to incorporate themselves; those no longer being a payer of “personal income tax” and becoming a payer of “corporate taxes” if they plan to pay any taxes at all. 🙂

    Btw in any society they will also be those who are making money.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Based on your experience when the Bills are being drafted isn’t part of the process to review similar pieces of legislation in other jurisdictions, especially in a he region to capture the nuances?

    @ David, the Office of the CPC jealously guards the drafting of legislation these days…no onside contribution is permitted.I have no idea what they refer to.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Jeff
    Could you do Bushie a small favour….?
    *Can you cite ANY legislative example in Barbados which reflects basic common sense and efficiency of thought?
    …we surely have a few…(

    @ Bushie, The Consumer Guarantees Act, Cap 325E and the Safety and Health at Work Act 2005 come readily to mind…

    Liked by 1 person

  • Based on your experience when the Bills are being drafted isn’t part of the process to review similar pieces of legislation in other jurisdictions, especially in a he region to capture the nuances?(Quote)

    This is the mature way of law making and all this should come out in the parliamentary debates. So, for example, in pensions law-making, legislators look at pensions in a number of jurisdictions – in modern terms, from Chile, to the US 401(K), the Australian Superannuation, and the Kiwisaver.
    You take the best bits out of all and leave the rest. So, in theory, the new legislation should be the most up to date. In interpreting that legislation, you do not wait on judges in their fusty robes to rule, you go back to authorial authenticity by re-reading Hansard for the intension of the parliament.
    By the way, this is what Barbados needs (as a key part of BERT), a good long-term savings plan.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @sirFuzzy

    There are companies that will make money in all economic situations BUT in Barbabos one must factor the cascading benefits in the economy given the level of profit making of a ‘few’. In other words the marginal contribution.

    Like

  • Employers in England and Wales must offer a new employee a CONTRACT of employment within two month of starting the job. The contract must state the place of work, the job title, hours of work, salary, annual holiday and other terms and benefits.

    That is the mistake our drafters made Hal…What England requires is a written statement of particulars. This is NOT a contract, as Barrow points out in the passage.Section 1 of the Employment Act UK provides-

    Where an employee begins employment with an employer, the employer shall give to the employee a written statement of particulars of employment.
    (2)The statement may (subject to section 2(4)) be given in instalments and (whether or not given in instalments) shall be given not later than two months after the beginning of the employment.
    (3)The statement shall contain particulars of—
    (a)the names of the employer and employee,
    (b)the date when the employment began, and
    (c)the date on which the employee’s period of continuous employment began (taking into account any employment with a previous employer which counts towards that period).

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Jeff,

    That is what we call a contract in England and Wales; in fact you get it as part of the job offer, not two months later. For example, I would interview someone during which I would offer them the job. I will tell them of the terms and conditions and the benefits, and part of my spiel will be that they would get all the benefits and the contract from HR within the next few days, a copy of which they had to sign and return. Everything within those four walls formed the contract. The only condition is the physical showing of their qualifications and references.
    Think about it: someone in a senior job with a rival company is offered a job, but only received the written contract two months later, which varies tremendously from the oral deal. What happens then? Can they walk out as @Lexicon suggests, or try to negotiate from a position of weakness. Employment tribunals would not tolerate that.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ Jeff at 2:17 PM

    Thanks Jeff for confirming what I have noticed in recent times….the lack of wider expert inputs to the drafting process.

    How did we reach this stage?

    Like

  • Hal, believe you me. I have taught Contract Law for nearly 20 years and Employment Law for at least seven. I know what is a contract of employment.Do you want me to refer you to the jurisprudence on the distinction between a written statement of particulars and a contract of employment or would even that not change your mind?Let me know!

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Jeff,

    I am not questioning your expertise. I know nothing about Barbados labour law. We are talking about two different jurisdictions and what I said is how I have done it for a number of years employing people and, myself, being hired. Labour law is also a key part of industrial relations and trade union studies and, I am told, HR studies..

    A contract ‘starts’ as soon as an offer of employment is accepted. Starting work proves that you accept the terms and conditions offered by the employer.
    Most employees are legally entitled to a Written Statement of the main terms and conditions of employment within two calendar months of starting work. This should include details of things like pay, holidays and working hours. (Quote)

    There is always a contract between an employee and employer. You may not have anything in writing, but a contract will still exist. This is because your agreement to work for your employer and your employer’s agreement to pay you for your work forms a contract. Your employer does have to give you a written statement within two months of you starting work. The statement must contain certain terms and conditions.
    A contract gives both you and your employer certain rights and obligations. The most common example is that you have a right to be paid for the work you do. Your employer has a right to give reasonable instructions to you and for you to work at your job. These rights and obligations are called contractual terms.
    The rights that you have under your contract of employment are in addition to the rights you have under law, such as, for example, the right to a national minimum wage and the right to paid holidays.(Quote)

    An employer must give employees a ‘written statement of employment particulars’ if their employment contract lasts at least a month or more. This isn’t an employment contract but will include the main conditions of employment.
    The employer must provide the written statement within 2 months of the start of employment.
    If an employee works abroad for more than a month during their first 2 months’ employment, the employer must give them the written statement before they leave.
    What a written statement must include
    A written statement can be made up of more than one document (if the employer gives employees different sections of their statement at different times). If this does happen, one of the documents (called the ‘principal statement’) must include at least:
    the business’s name
    the employee’s name, job title or a description of work and start date
    if a previous job counts towards a period of continuous employment, the date the period started
    how much and how often an employee will get paid
    hours of work (and if employees will have to work Sundays, nights or overtime
    holiday entitlement (and if that includes public holidays)
    where an employee will be working and whether they might have to relocate
    if an employee works in different places, where these will be and what the employer’s address is
    As well as the principal statement, a written statement must also contain information about:
    how long a temporary job is expected to last
    the end date of a fixed-term contract
    notice periods
    collective agreements
    pensions
    who to go to with a grievance
    how to complain about how a grievance is handled
    how to complain about a disciplinary or dismissal decision

    What a written statement doesn’t need to include
    The written statement doesn’t need to cover the following (but it must say where the information can be found):
    sick pay and procedures
    disciplinary and dismissal procedures
    grievance procedures(Quote)

    Like

  • Hal, i have not the time nor stomach to lock horns with you on this. Make of these dicta what you will and please have the last word.

    Browne-Wilkinson J discussed the status of the statement of main terms of employment: *It provides very strong prima facie evidence of what were the terms of the contract between the parties but does not constitute a written contract between the parties. Nor are the statements of the terms finally conclusive: at most they place a heavy burden on the employer to show that the actual terms of contract are different from those he has set out in the statutory statement.’

    Liked by 1 person

  • Employers in England and Wales must offer a new employee a CONTRACT of employment within two month of starting the job.

    An employer must give employees a ‘written statement of employment particulars’ if their employment contract lasts at least a month or more. *This isn’t an employment contract but will include the main conditions of employment.

    Which is it?

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    “A contract starts as soon as an offer of employment is accepted”

    Not necessarily or at least for some unionized workers…

    A contract starts for some unionized workers after they have completed their tlprobationary period, because it is at this point where they start paying their union dues, and are therefore entitled to union representation. Before that there are at the mercy of the employer because even those they have no union representation during their probationary period, they are still subjected to the employer’s policies and procedures…

    Like

  • SirFuzzy (Former Sheep)

    (quote)
    Before that there are at the mercy of the employer because even those they have no union representation during their probationary period, they are still subjected to the employer’s policies and procedures…
    (quote)

    So If the probation period last six months. under what agreement is the employee and employer operating if it not a contract?

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    If the contract started at the initial offer of employment, the unionized worker would have be entitled to arbitration had he or she been terminated within the probationary period…

    Like

  • Sirfuzzy

    I am employed by state government here and within my department there are unionized and non- union workers …
    Now the non-union workers operates on what are offered to them by human resources –

    So in a nut shell: the non-union worker don’t accrue the kind of vacation, sick time, hourly wages, retirement package and representation etc as an unionized worker would … however, sometimes the non- union worker has better pay, but a poor retirement package or both and this is all based on his or her agreement with human resources…

    Like

  • Sirfuzzy

    The non- union worker is still subjected to the employer’s policies and procedures, but devoid of union representation…

    Like

  • Sirfuzzy

    But an unionized worker on probation and a non-union worker still have two options at his or her disposal if they believed that they have been wrongly terminated … they could seek legal representation, or they can file a claim with the labour department for wrongful dismissal etc …

    Like

  • Sirfuzzy

    And lastly, they can also file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Office … if they believed that the employer was discriminatory …

    Like

  • Mr Cumberbatch’s comment about the written statement (WS) is correct. And it is supported by English case law. See Robertson v British Gas Corporation [1983] ICR 351, [1983] IRLR 302, CA.

    In the Robertson case, the Court of Appeal said that the WS by itself is not a written contract of employment. But merely evidence of the terms of the contract of employment.

    Also see the ACAS website at: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5506

    Employers in England tend to incorporate the WS into a contract of employment. And the contract of employment will normally say so, e.g. “(name of employee) acknowledge that I have received a written statement as per s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and agree that these constitute my contract of employment with (name of employer)”.

    Like

  • SirFuzzy (Former Sheep)

    @ lexicon.

    From what u have stated it appears that a contract is in force; with the unionised workers having a more favourable contract than the non-unionised worker.

    Like

  • Yes …I am afraid so Sir …

    Like

  • @Jeff

    Hope your fingerprints are not on the stillborn Antiquities Bill…😁

    Like

  • @Lexicon,

    A worker on probation can be terminated at anytime on competency grounds, usually with a week’s notice/pay. Probation or not, all workers have certain statutory rights from day one..

    In the Robertson case, the Court of Appeal said that the WS by itself is not a written contract of employment. But merely evidence of the terms of the contract of employment.(Quote)
    If employers in England Wales tend to incorporate the Statement in to the contract of employment, is it fair to say the Statement then becomes part of the contract of employment, and not just a supplementary or clarification of the terms of the contract?

    BTW, in future employers in England and Wales should give an employee a Statement and forget the idea of a written contract. See how that goes down.

    Like

  • Hope your fingerprints are not on the stillborn Antiquities Bill…😁

    No, David, have not been given the opportunity too draft anything since the Consumers Guarantee Act… 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  • Hal Austin

    Correct … however, there is recourse for the probationary worker if he or she can prove that his or her termination was not justified even on compentency grounds…

    Nevertheless, I knew of one case where an employee was terminated during her probationary period for allegedly sleeping on the job, and she hired a lawyer who got her job back after a year with back-pay, vacation, sick and personal time for the time she was unemployed.

    Like

  • @ Lexicon,

    If a probationer sleeps on the job the first concern is their health. That is not a sackable offence. The second would be the working hours, which is a Statutory right. In fact, it is embedded in EU law. (What will Brexit say?)..

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    An employee on permanent status can also be terminated for job performance based on progressive discipline ….

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    That depends on the nature of the employment … because if an employee charged with the responsibility of watching at risk children falls asleep on the job, and one of the children harmed himself …that employee can be terminated on the grounds of neglect, and if the child dies …the employee can face possibly criminal charges…

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    There are there things that aren’t tolerated on the job in America, and I quite someone who lives in the US can substantiate what I am saying:

    1) Violence in the workplace or creating a hostile working environment…

    2) Sexual harassment

    3) Sleeping on the Job

    These three things have a zero tolerance policy attached to them …

    And Hal, if an employee finds that he falls asleep on the job, he better inform his supervisor, or have a doctor’s note supporting why he does ….

    Like

  • Three sorry

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    And when the sexual harassment laws reaches Barbados … a lot of Bajan men are going to be shocked to discover that undressing a woman with your eyes in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment …

    Like

  • @ Jeff
    Bushie, The Consumer Guarantees Act, Cap 325E and the Safety and Health at Work Act 2005 come readily to mind…
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Thanks Boss…
    So now perhaps sometime you will explain how CLICO victims have avoided being classified as ‘consumers’ worthy of protection.

    Like

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ the LUMINARY Jeff Cumberbatch

    I would not seek to truncate your response go Brother in Arms Bush Tea on the Clico query

    However I would comment on your remark which I quote

    “…No, David, have not been given the opportunity too draft anything since the Consumers Guarantee Act… 🙂…”

    Nor, and the ole man will employ my accustomed speculation here to add, nor should you even think that you vood sir WILL EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DRAFT ANY LAW UNDER THE MUGABE REGIME

    Have you ever see water and oil commingle???

    No de ole man fears that you will only see service under the incoming government of the Third Party Movement with Caswell Franklyn and his colleagues

    Like

  • @ Jeff. There is a comment that has caught my attention you wrote Moreover, the local ERA has caused a theoretical confusion by its attempt to create a new form of wrongful dismissal upon the already existing common law concept. It would appear you are suggesting that a dismissal could be wrong and unfair. Could the new form of wrongful dismissal you alluded to be unfair dismissal and could the compensation based on statute and damages based on common law be calculated based on a separate calculus without the possibility of setting of one settlement against the other.

    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