Orville Taylor | IDT and LRIDA: 50 not out

When politicians disagree about something and then agree, but disagree about the very things that they themselves had asserted in the beginning, clearly it is very likely to be something good

June marks 50 years since the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA) was passed. A critical statute, it moved the Jamaican industrial relations system from one built entirely on volunteerism, to being regulated by legislation.

With the birth of the National Workers’ Union (NWU) in 1952, following the advent of the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU) 13 years earlier, these two affiliates of the People’s National Party (PNP) and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), respectively, carried out free collective bargaining and arrived at collective labour agreements, either independently with employers, or through moral suasion via the Ministry of Labour.

A somewhat uncomfortable arrangement, this volunteerism nonetheless, led to disagreements regarding the validity of collective agreements and often employers felt free to withdraw the voluntary recognition given to trade unions, instead of continuing negotiations with them.

Something had to give. After a spirited two-year battle in Parliament, it was finally signed into law at the beginning of summer 1975.

Though enacted under the socialist regime of the PNP, it was not the brainchild of that party. Interestingly, along with the Termination of Employment Bill, The Industrial Relations Bill was brought to Parliament by the Hugh Shearer led JLP in 1971. It gets even more interesting. When brought into the public sphere, it was strongly opposed by elements within the PNP, including parliamentarians, and the then research officer of the NWU, who felt, back in 1971, that the processes of collective bargaining should have been left to unregulated negotiations, without the overarching arm of government.

Yet, politics, like alcohol and other narcotics, induce short-term memory loss. When the act returned to Parliament in 1973, packaged as part of the worker centric socialist government’s agenda, the Opposition lived up to its name in every sense of the word. Elements within the BITU and the JLP strongly opposed some of the very clauses and provisions they had themselves initiated back in 1971.

Thankfully, the effects of the urine from the schizophrenic feline wore off, and the legislation was passed.

Under the act, via an elaborate procedure, compulsory recognition of trade unions was enshrined after they have satisfied the ministry, via a ballot, that the majority of workers in a particular category or categories, wanted to be represented by such a union. Now, even if the employer changed his mind, the union was there to stay until the workers changed theirs.

A creature never seen before in Jamaica’s history; the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) was created under Section 7 of the Act. Its very structure is the epitome of consensus. Built along tripartite lines, it comprises a chairman, deputy chairmen, and members, all nominated from the three social partners; trade unions, employers and of course, government.

Created under the general schema of the legislation, which is to regulate relations among employers, workers and their representatives, the subtext behind the creation of the IDT is a recognition that a strong correlation exists between peace of any sort, industrial in this case, on the one hand and justice on the other.

A first instance court, it has the power to either reinstate unjustifiably dismissed workers, or award compensation, or both.

For all the misgivings that people may have about the Tribunal and its rulings; it has a solid reputation. More than 95 percent of its awards are agreed on by all members of the panels. Moreover, when brought before the higher courts on appeal the majority have been upheld.

Suckers of sour grapes and the other naysayers, when it suits them, speak of bias. Academic reviews of awards of the Tribunal over the years have not reflected any such finding. In any event, one would imagine that well-guided employers, guided by sensible human resources practitioners and ethical lawyers, would not advise their clients to take a matter to the IDT without having a reasonable chance of success. Of course, for some strange reason some do.

Unlike parish courts, including the family court, the IDT has a body of knowledge and a history of cases, which an interested person, willing to see beyond the grand narrative, is able to pick from the myriad judgments, which are instructive.

For persons who are interested in curing the pandemic of ignorance, regarding labour laws, or the substance of the IDT, there are multiple publications, including a few by yours truly. Although out of print, a wonderful compendium by my colleague Noel Cowell and another much larger volume by my other colleagues Carla Ann Roper and Natalie Corthesy, show great evidence of the amazing work of the tribunal.

Some quick cases which come to mind are; Village Resorts, Jamaica Flour Mills, National Commercial Bank, University of Technology, Private Power Operators, in which all of the appellants, disgruntled with the initial findings of the IDT, went higher and lost with the panache of a West Indian cricket team.

Still, inasmuch as there is no doubt about the validity and relevance of the IDT, I being one of its biggest fans, having worked with most of its personnel over the last four decades, they certainly have higher degrees of integrity than the majority of persons who legislate over them.

However, to give the IDT a bit more teeth, the panellists need the sort of security of tenure which members of the judiciary have. This way there can be no perception of fear that an angry minister, who has the ultimate say regarding the appointees, may simply do what employers used to do before compulsory recognition of trade unions.

And for the record, the emerging tribunals on discrimination and sexual harassment have a great template to work from, and perhaps as we move towards greater efficiency, they probably could simply become divisions of a more resourced IDT.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.