MAY this year is set for another round in the legal battle between the newly formed Security Guard Taskforce, and security firm Marksman Limited, and its parent group Guardsman Limited, over the legality of new employment contracts.

The contracts became a bone of contention after the 2022 Supreme Court landmark ruling which determined that security guards at Marksman Limited were employees, and not independent contractors.

Following that judgement, scores of guards balked at signing the new employment contracts, citing concerns over the absence of specific transitional arrangements relating to their previous years of service and vacation leave.

The contracts, a version of which was seen by the
Jamaica Observer, read: “The officer was engaged as an independent contractor” on a fixed-term contract that would have come to an end pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment in which the court determined, “with prospective effect that the security engaged under the contract and who provided services to third parties are in fact employees.

“And because of that decision, the parties to the contract have agreed that the contract will terminate by mutual agreement without blame or fault as of March 31, 2023 on the terms and conditions set out…”

The Union of Clerical, Administrative and Supervisory Employees (UCASE), which has been engaging the guards, has maintained that a number of the guards have not been allowed to work since April last year because they refused to sign the new contracts and agree to the terms.

Speaking with the
Observer Monday, UCASE President Vincent Morrison said the security outfits at the first two court hearings in December had complained that the documents filed by the attorney for the taskforce had not been served on them. He said with that hurdle cleared the security firms are to mount their defence in May.

“The companies are supposed to file their response to the document we put before the courts seeking a declaration on the contract that the workers are being forced to sign. The problem is that those workers who have not signed have been denied employment — they have not worked since last year — and we believe that this is very unfair. And we think it is unfair to the workers because they have not committed any misdemeanor, they have not breached any rules; they got a document and they sought clarification, and because they sought clarification they have been denied employment,” Morrison told the
Observer.

“Our thinking, based on what has been happening in Jamaica for years, is that these contracts are not only unfair but we think they are illegal,” he said further.

The UCASE president said the court’s intervention is also expected to clear some other concerns on the part of the security guards.

“A number of workers have complained that their statutory deductions for housing and National Insurance Scheme were not turned over to the institutions. A number of workers got injured on the job and those workers have cases before the companies. Had they signed those contracts, it would have extinguished all of those claims. Some workers have been with the companies for 40-odd years, [and] a lot of workers have given long years of service with no vacation leave, so we believe that the best thing was to go to court to get a declaration on the contracts,” Morrison said.

He said UCASE has, in the meantime, made inroads in advocating for security guards in other respects.

“We won bargaining rights for in excess of 230 workers at the United States embassy; these workers are diplomatic security officers. We had intensive negotiations, and just before the holidays we were able to settle a new labour agreement for those workers, and we also served claims for the diplomatic security guards at the British High Commission in Kingston,” Morrison said.

He said that claim for representational rights for the guards is being processed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.

“We are making some inroads; it’s hard work, tough work, but that is what we are about — providing some protection for the workers. They have no social protection at all, and we think it’s wrong as a country for workers to be working 40-odd years and when you each retirement there is absolutely no social protection,” the veteran trade unionist stated.

In the Supreme Court’s decision handed down on Friday, September 23, 2022 the court ruled that, effective then, third-party security guards employed to Marksman Security Limited are employees, and not independent contractors, and that the company should immediately begin paying over their three per cent NHT statutory contributions.

Marksman, in the wake of that ruling, said there would be an increase in the rates/fees to clients.

Meanwhle, the Government last January announced that it would be moving to amend more than 500 contracts to upgrade the status of guards — hired through security guard firms to provide services at ministries, departments, and agencies — to employees by April 1. It, at the time, encouraged private sector firms to follow its lead in voluntarily renegotiating contracts with security guard firms.

Subsequently, in May last year, then Minister of Labour Karl Samuda announced a 33 per cent minimum wage increase for industrial security guards, from $10,500 to $14,000 per 40-hour workweek.