S. George Kirklady, Guest Columnist

I refer to the editorial of August 13, and articles in the Financial Gleaner of the 11th inst., and ask myself what the heck is wrong with industrial relations in this country? We hear of 227 industrial actions over the past year. I can hardly believe this. In my days at the ministry during the fierce union competition and adversarial approach, this figure would most likely refer to the number of disputes reported, not to industrial action. and we did not have then the legalistic guidance of a law.

The disruptive situation arising, inter alia, from worker claims which could or could not be justifiable, shows little regard for restraint or adherence to established procedures.

We must take a serious look at the system, not to mention the attitude of the players. Are the procedures working? are they made to work by the input of efficient management personnel? Are some employers by their actions encouraging industrial unrest? Is there deliberate sabotage of the system? And what has happened to the Pre-Conciliation Unit established at the ministry for guiding and encouraging the parties to settle their issues at the local level before they blossom into a dispute - a system in operation in other countries, e.g. Canada, which is highly successful?

Essential services

The nurses, for example, took industrial action, but I am yet to hear whether they were told that in doing so they were breaching Section 9 of the LRIDA which forbids industrial action in essential services. Was there a public announcement to this effect and requiring a resumption of work from any of the ministries involved? This should happen irrespective of the justification of their claims. The same applies to the medical technologists at the Cornwall Regional Hospital. Similarly, has one enquired whether the Bank of Jamaica workers and their leader or the bauxite workers gave the required strike notice to the Ministry of Labour in accordance with the amendment to LRIDA in 2002?

And what action was taken when certain bauxite workers led, by their union vice-president, defied the Order of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) to resume work - an offence under the Act - which showed blatant disrespect for the authority of the IDT, a legally-established body?

All this then points to the dearth of leadership from those claiming to the leaders and those in which the authority lies to ensure implementation of the law. If that leadership is incapable or unwilling to act for one reason or another, then what is the use of a law enacted to set procedures and assist the parties in achieving industrial harmony? I know many are reeling from the impact of the high cost of living or are angry over perceived injustices, but there is a rational way to deal with this and leaders must endeavour to lead not follow.

I hope the JEF is overstating its case with regard to negotiations at the ministry while industrial action is taking place. The ministry has denied this charge. so, a general observation to my old employer: never be swayed by pressure from any quarter; never be swayed by the thought that the dispute is of national importance and needs to be settled quickly Section 10 of the act covers disputes of national importance and as a result, set aside the well-reasoned principle in practice long before the LRIDA was enacted, of securing a formula for resumption before negotiations. To do otherwise would be encouraging chaos and disorder in the industrial relations field. Remember there is the IDT if no back-to-work formula can be achieved, where a resumption of work order will be made despite the illegal act of some bauxite workers mentioned earlier. The Ministry of Labour has had a reputation for sterling work in the settlement of disputes and I hope this will continue.

Responsible unions

I can't help mentioning an article by Raymond Forrest in the Financial Gleaner of August 11, that the "time may well be coming in Jamaica when the responsible unions are fined $1 million a day (as has happened in other countries) for its workers acting irresponsibly when it comes to wildcat strikes." For those who may favour the idea, let me say this will never happen here.

I recall when I was associated with the drafting of LRIDA, being instructed to include a provision making it an offence for anyone to incite, abet or support illegal action in an essential service. Within a week I was told to take it out as the unions were afraid of being caught in the net. Hence my view that Mr. Forrest's observation "wouldn't stand".

It is reported that the JEF has suggested a meeting with the unions and I hope they can get together and work out a policy to be followed in negotiations. In so doing, I suggest they take a look at the procedures set out in the Prime Minister's Task Force on Work Attitudes, etc., pages 59-63, tabled in Parliament in 1983 and approved by both unions and employers. The years may have rolled by, but the procedures remain constant.

S. George Kirkaldy is a retired industrial relations specialist.