NATIONAL Security Minister Senator Dwight Nelson has cautioned the parliamentary committee contemplating the flexi-work week arrangements to steer clear of prescribing to employers their staff complement, not even in the interest of maintaining the 40-hour limit.

The committee, chaired by Labour and Social Security Minister Pearnel Charles, has been trying to sign off on a pact for a 40-hour work week which has been under discussion since 2001. Among the recommendations to be made to Parliament by the committee are that:

* all seven days of the week are to be regarded as normal work hours;

* the work day is to consist of a maximum twelve hours; and that

* the work week is to consist of 40 hours and overtime is to be earned only after an employee has completed 40 hours of work within a week.

However, a cap will be imposed on the daily number of work hours — not exceeding 12 — in keeping with labour guidelines set by the labour ministry.

But speaking last Thursday at the final meeting of the group, Nelson said while the argument that the flexi-work week would increase productivity, and perhaps employment, was understood, there was an element of risk.

“That is a dangerous path we are travelling down, and while I appreciate the concept of increased employment and increased productivity, you can’t begin to prescribe to an employer how many people he must employ in any given circumstances,” Nelson said.

“The idea that flexible work arrangements could possibly create new employment is a concept and really ought not to be here because what you want here are prescriptions, not philosophical concepts.

“It should be eliminated,” he advised.

Nelson’s caution came after Opposition Senator Norman Grant queried whether an exemption should not be made in the case of workers in the agricultural sector, because of the nature of their vocation.

“I want to raise a concern in terms of whether or not we should not be seeking an exemption for the agricultural workers in terms of when certain things are to be required for execution you can’t defer it, and if you go into a negotiation in terms of allocation of work hours you could really be saddling the employer with huge overtime costs which at this particular juncture, and in this environment, could certainly threaten the viability of the project,” Grant told the committee.

“I’m submitting to this committee that in the same way you deal with doctors and nurses — and those get paid overtime — but the agricultural projects, because of the slim margin of operation, will not be able to. I am making a strong case for the workers in the sector to be exempt from the 40-hour work week,” Grant said.

Charles was not inclined to agree.

“All it’s saying is ‘I will have three people cutting cane instead of one, for example’. I’m not saying you must have a 40-hour work week for your farm, I am just saying each employee should work 40 hours,” the labour minister contended.

Nelson, however, found merit in Grant’s position.

“Even under the present situation… we have come to accept that there are work situations that cannot be done over eight hours per day, five days per week, 40 hours per week. Why would we want to dismiss the case being made out for agriculture?” he asked.

“It is not our responsibility to prescribe to an employer that he should employ a certain number of workers. It is a dangerous path that we are going down because what you are saying is, if an employer in agriculture has a job that must be done in a particular time, he must split up the time among a certain number of workers and give them a time within which they must complete their aspect,” Nelson noted.

“That is relevant, too, with the security guards that we are talking about. We have already said you don’t have to be eight hours, you can go up to a recommended 12 hours. What do we do? Lift the cap? Leave it open?” Charles queried.

“I have a suggestion. Rather than allude to specific occupations, like agriculture, this committee’s report to Parliament could note that there are places of employment where it might become necessary to work in excess of the 40 hours,” Nelson said.

In the meantime, other objectives of the recommendations — which are more industry guidelines than laws — serve to put boundaries to ensure that compensation for overtime comes to the employee and prevent employers from compelling the worker to go beyond what is deemed a reasonable number of hours in any one day without reimbursement. It also allows for agreements to be made between the employer and the employee as to the number of hours worked on any given day to arrive at the 40 hours.

In the meantime, the committee also recommended that the relevant legislative changes be made to legitimise women working at night. Currently, the Women (Employment Of) Act, restricts females from working at nights, except in specified professions such as nursing. Under that Act, the total hours of employment (by day and night) of a woman who is permitted to be employed in night work under the Act cannot exceed 10 hours in any 24 hours.

It is also being recommended that the implementation of the recommendations be reviewed in the next three years.

And more than 20 pieces of legislation will be consequentially amended based on the recommendations, including the Apprenticeship (Motor Mechanic Trade) Order; the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act; the Customs Regulations; The Excise Duty Regulations; and the Food Storage and Prevention of Infestation Regulations.

It will also require amendments to the Holidays Public General Act, the Holidays With Pay Order, the Interpretation Act, the Minimum Wage (Industrial Security Guards) Order and the National Insurance Act, among others.