Labour Law, Statutory Arbitration and the Termination of Employment: Exercising Rights Rightly

• Author: Clinton Davis and Orville W. Taylor
• Pages: 451-472

451

THE LAW AND WORKPLACE GOVERNANCE

Labour Law, Statutory Arbitration

and the Termination of Employment:

Exercising Rights Rightly

The three decades following the workers' riots of the 1930s in the

Caribbean region were characterised by an intense search to find and

implement legislative regimes for industrial relations practices which would

overcome, or at least minimise, the hostile and adversarial attitudes which

characterised the “master and servant” relationships in that era. The aim was

for systems which ensured or contributed to the peaceful resolution of disputes

with the minimum, if any, disruption at the work place.

Like the riots which spawned these labour movements, the attempts at

creating regulatory machinery for the maintenance of industrial peace were

trans-Caribbean. The disturbances raised a regional preoccupation with

mechanisms of state intervention in industrial relations and at least ten West

Indian governments passed Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Enquiry) Laws

(TDAE) (Okpaluba, 1975: 1). As early as 1939, the Jamaican legislature enacted

its own version of the Law. By 1952, the Public Utilities Undertaking and

Public Services Arbitration Law (PUUPSAL), also called the Essential Services

Law (ESL), was passed.

During the period following the World War II, there were clear signs that

the governments in the larger economies wanted greater control over disputes

settlement and were inclined towards putting in place rigid institutions for

this purpose. As far back as 1943, a Committee on Industrial Relations in

Jamaica recommended the establishment of an Industrial Court for Jamaica

"to deal with the settlement of disputes that have outlasted negotiation and

conciliation processes" and the enactment of a single Industrial Relations Law

(Okpaluba, 1975: 8).

For over two decades, little was done in this regard, until Trinidad and

Tobago passed its Industrial Stabilisation Act (ISA) in 1965. The statute which

was enacted in a hurry "was debated for only two days and was passed by both

the House of Representatives and the Senate, and assented to on March 20,

 

452 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

1965" (Chaudhary, 1984: 124).

While the reason for the haste is unclear, the Act created the Trinidad and

Tobago Industrial Court (TTIC) as a final statutory arbitrator. It also repealed

the republic's own Trade Disputes (Aarbitration and Inquiry)Ordinance of

1938.

In contrast, it took over five years and prolonged discussions after it was

initially tabled in 1970 for the Jamaican Labour Relations and Industrial

Disputes Act (LRIDA) to be passed. Like its corresponding legislation in

Trinidad, the LRIDA established, inter alia, an Industrial Disputes Tribunal

(IDT) as a final arbitrator in the matter of industrial disputes. Similarly, it

repealed the PUUPSAL. By the time the LRIDA was brought into law in

1975, the Trinidad and Tobago Industrial Relations Act (TTIRA) had been

passed three years earlier, repealing and improving upon the ISA.

It is to be noted that the ISA was seen as not having fulfilled its primary

objective of swiftly settling industrial disputes. In the opinion of several,

including Chaudhary, the Act "clearly failed to realise, in practice, the objective

of an expeditious settlement of labour disputes" (Chaudhary, 1984: 138).

Nevertheless, the TTIC remained a legacy which was maintained by the

TTIRA. There is some similarity between the TTIC and the Jamaican IDT.

However, it appears that the preference of the Jamaican authorities continues

to be for a tribunal and not a court. Still, it is felt that a studied comparison,

contrast and analysis of the two approaches, court or tribunal, would be quite

interesting, insightful and rewarding for both nations and the Caribbean region

on the whole.

A cursory comparison of the TTIC and the IDT suggests that the former

is a more regulated body than the IDT. First of all, it is a court of law on par

with the Supreme Court. In fact, it is headed by a president who is either a

judge of the Supreme Court or an individual qualified to be so appointed. On

the other hand, the IDT is not compelled to have qualified jurists among its

members. It is a tripartite body which consists of members nominated by the

minister, the employers' federation and the confederation of trade unions. It

mirrors the structure of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

Theoretically, it carries more moral authority and validity since it represents

the interests of all the major players in labour-management relations. However,

it is headed by a chairman and manned by members whose minimum

qualifications are not specified, thus allowing for criticisms, however

unfounded, about the suitability of some of the panellists.

One should be cautioned against arguing that the more legally restricted

system is more efficient or expedient. On the contrary, it could very well be

that the tripartite composition of the IDT lends itself to more representative