This year’s observance of Workers’ Week is historically important as it forms part of the programme celebrating Jamaica’s first 60 years of Independence and the contributions of our workers to the economic and social development of our society.

I stand proudly with our workers who have, historically, contributed so much of their physical and mental abilities to these elements of progress, and their continued belief in the value of labour as an essential element of progress and prosperity.

While the nation focuses on the celebration of these successes, we cannot ignore the fact that, in this post-pandemic period, much more will be required of us as trade unionists and workers as we face the challenges of the (new order) with the hope that legislation, which has strangled much of our efforts to create a much more equitable and impartial society for future generations.

However, the fact is that while we have always focused on the events that give us satisfaction and pride in our history, there comes a time when we have to accept that there are still more challenges than successes and, for us to meet and defeat these challenges, we must be assured that justice is balanced and legislation is fair to both those who have and those who have not.

The Bustamante Industrial Trade Union would have taken note that it has recently become topical for the fines found in various classification of legislation to be reviewed, to determine their usefulness and to ensure that the intended deterrent function remains relevant.

While we treat with labour in general and with focus on “Labour Day”, it is extremely important that our labour laws receive the same level of review, examination and, where required, amendment.

In a study undertaken by our union, it would have been noted that our legislators would have sought to include determined fines which, by the nature of what it would call to be forfeited, would lend to caution being exercised, where they would therefore serve as a financial deterrent to persons holding positions and offices who could find themselves in breach of those laws and of workers’ rights.

This “deterrent effect” has been eroded, or lost over time due to the arbitrary or non-review over the period of time the specific law has been in effect”.

There can be no question to the fact that the intrinsic value attached to both our national currency and, by direct correlation, the fines indicated in our legislation would have changed. While there is arguably no single science to determine, with pinpointed accuracy, exactly what that change would be, since the mid 1940s when the majority of our labour legislation would have been enacted, and the present day, inflationary movements over the expanse of time provides a fair indicator of the significant change experienced.

Even recently, the Government of Jamaica would have announced pending adjustments to the monetary denomination of the Jamaica dollar through its central bank. Set against the reasons and rational support for this change was a suggested need/desire to carry fewer bills when doing cash transactions. In my mind, this also underscores the fact that the value of our money would have indeed changed significantly”.

“We should not be lost by the fact that the current labour fines may be higher than those ridiculous examples which would have been highlighted recently in the media and our public spaces. If we were to juxtapose the exposure in relation to those offences vis-à-vis that within the laws applicable to the labour force, one pales against the other.”

The fact is that the intended usefulness of the indicated monetary amount in our laws as a deterrent has been eroded.

We should also give sight to the fact that more recent legislation and draft Bills which are intended to operate within the industrial relations environment, contain relevant, current, properly balanced fines. These legislations/bills would include Sexual Harassment legislation and the Occupational Safety and Health Act) OSHA Act among others.

These ‘up-to-date’ fines are pivotal to the success of each individual legislation once enacted, because they will serve as effective deterrents to breaches of the legislation. However, the imbalance between the previously existing fines and these new fines could create a loophole for bad employers to exploit.

The Ministry of Justice has embraced the adjustment of over 800 pieces of legislation, since 2017. However, while we take note of this commitment, it is obvious that there is a need to focus on several others, commonly referred to simply as “Labour Laws”.

For example, the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA) 1975, which has benefitted from increases in the fines in cases where an employer prevents or deters a worker from exercising his or her right to trade union representation, or obstructs any person authorised in writing by the minister to take a ballot; or the failure to recognise a trade union as having bargaining rights; or fails to comply with an Order from the IDT shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

This serves as some level of deterrent, but would require additional adjustments to restore the level of disincentive and unencumbrance that the clause originally provided.

Similar amendments were done to the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act (ETRA) of 1974 back in 2008, but we continue to find multiple instances where calculations are incorrectly represented, and workers, in some instances, are collectively fleeced of millions of dollars from their entitlement.

While insisting that statements must, in all circumstances, be provided to the employee, we would suggest that further realignment of the punitive measure would not only encourage the provision of same, but would also ensure accuracy.

So while acknowledging that changes have been made in the past, we embrace the minister’s position that much more needs to be done.

There are a number of important pieces of legislation still awaiting adjustment to bring them up to 21st century relevance, including: The Maternity Leave Act (1997); The Employment (Equal Pay for Men and Women) Act (1975); and the Labour Officers (Powers Act) 1943.

I would not for one minute be suggesting that the needed review and update of the labour legislation is relegated to the sanctions included therein, because the leadership of the BITU has consistently advocated for several changes and amendments, by inclusion of procedural codes in the case of the Employment Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act (ETRPA), for example, and for relevance to today’s world of work in general, but for just this moment, the research seeks to shine light in the direction in which it has shone the review of fines.

There is need for a mechanism in which these laws are more easily updated under frequent “legislative review” to prevent reoccurrence of the state to which things have fallen in the future. In the circumstances, the BITU welcomes the Government’s decision to create a Ministry of Legal and Constitutional Affairs (MLCA), headed by the former Attorney General, Marlene Malahoo Forte, to take charge of, and give focused attention to legislative agenda and its legal and constitutional reform implications.

Ruddy Thomas is a vice-president of the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union.