The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Companies in the tourism, construction and retail sectors were yesterday urged to “pay special attention” to the Government’s proposed Employment Act reforms, with employers also expressing concern over changes to ‘rest periods’ and holiday pay.

Concerns outlined by the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation’s (BCCEC) Employment and Labour Division, which have been obtained by Tribune Business, urge that the proposed ‘12 consecutive hours of rest’ granted to Bahamian workers be reduced to eight.

Warning that the consequences of the proposed reforms needed to be “thought out”, the BCCEC said the ‘rest period’ and ‘fixed day off’ changes would negatively impact shift work and businesses that operated for 24-hours per day, seven days a week.

The private sector body also warned that the proposed requirements for staff to be paid their normal wage for a public holiday, even if they did not work that day, meant hourly paid staff would be paid for “time they have not worked”.

Sending the message that the Employment Act reforms would impose an extra cost burden on Bahamas-based businesses, and cause major logistical headaches for companies with respect to staff rostering and management, the BCCEC said that “fundamental principal” meant employers could not agree to pay staff for “unproductive time” - the proposed mandatory lunch hour.

Unpaid lunch hours were common practice around the globe, the BCCEC paper added, rejecting as false claims that the Bahamas had ratified an International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention that meal periods be paid.

An e-mail sent to BCCEC members yesterday by its chief executive, Winston Rolle, complained that the Ministry of Labour had given “extremely short notice” of the proposed reforms, allowing only a week for interested parties to provide feedback.

The e-mail, seen by Tribune Business, said the BCCEC had sent a letter to the Ministry outlining its initial views, and was due to meet minister of labour and national insurance, Shane Gibson, on the issue next week.

“Persons involved in the construction industry (builder or provider), tourism, retail, supermarket and fast food industries should pay special attention to the proposed changes,” Mr Rolle said.

Describing how the consultation process had played out to-date, the BCCEC chief executive added: “When contacted by e-mail last Thursday we were asked to provide feedback by today, which we felt was extremely short notice when one considers the significance of some the proposed amendments to the legislations.

“With that being said, the Employment and Labour Division of the Chamber reviewed the proposed amendments, and today [Thursday]a letter was delivered to the Department of Labour expressing our initial views, as well as noting that we are still in the process of collecting feedback from our members on the impact on the proposed changes.”

Mr Rolle urged Bahamian companies to supply their comments and concerns to the BCCEC by Tuesday, in time for the meeting with Mr Gibson.

BCCEC executives yesterday declined to comment further on the reforms, saying they preferred to wait until after the meeting with Mr Gibson.

Confirming that senior BCCEC executives met on the Employment Act changes on Wednesday afternoon, Mr Rolle would only say: “We did send a response to the Ministry, and have a meeting scheduled with the Minister next week. We’re still getting feedback from our members at this time.”

Causing particular consternation for Bahamian employers is the proposal to include a mandatory one-hour lunch break in the definition of the ‘40-hour work week’.

This amendment effectively reduces the Standard Hours of Work to 35 hours per week for Bahamian workers.

Or, put another way, if passed the amendment will require Bahamian companies to pay employees for five non-working, nonproductive hours per week - with the effect of both reducing output and increasing labour costs. It reduces the productive working week by 12.5 per cent, or one-eighth.

Dionisio D’Aguilar, Superwash’s president, said the move would pose a major staffing challenge for his three-shift operation, and threatened to raise his payroll costs by 19 per cent.

Other Bahamian businesses have calculated the lunch hour provision could raise their labour costs by around 14-15 per cent, they told Tribune Business.

Outlining the private sector’s objections to the lunch hour provision, the BCCEC document said: “Based on fundamental principles, employers cannot agree to paid meal periods being required by legislation, since meal periods are unproductive time.

“In addition, by custom and practice, meal periods of various lengths, usually 30 minutes to 60 minutes, are provided by different sectors, industries and individual businesses. The requirement of a one-hour meal period is too rigid and represents a further onerous burden on the employer.”

The BCCEC noted that the Employment Act’s predecessor, the Fair Labour Standards Act, never mentioned ‘paid meal periods’, and the ‘Standard Hours of Work’ definition was the same in both.

“Ample legal precedent exists to show that meal periods were not included in the Fair Labour Standards Act,” the BCCEC said. “Therefore, by using the same language, meal periods are not included in the Employment Act.”

Pointing out that the Bahamas would be a ‘pioneer’ if it included ‘paid lunch hours’ in its legislation, the BCCEC added that not one of the ILO’s 189 conventions provided for paid lunch hours for staff.

In fact, Convention 30 excluded meal and break periods from the ‘hours of work’. “The custom and practice of providing unpaid meal periods is practiced throughout the globe,” the BCCEC said, urging the Government to adopt Convention 30’s language.

It called on the ‘paid lunch hour’ reform to be altered to read: “The term standard hours of work’ means the time during which employees are at the disposal of the employer; it does not include meal or break periods during which employees are normally not at the disposal of the employer.”

As for allowing employees ‘at least 12 consecutive hours of rest’ between ending and re-starting work, the BCCEC warned: “As a new provision that has never been legislated, the ramifications of this proposal need to be thought out.

“It is the opinion of employers that ‘a daily rest period of at least 12 consecutive hours between ending and recommencing work’ does not take into consideration shift workers in a 24 hours a day, seven days a week operation.

“For example, if an employee is required/allowed to work a double shift, they would only be off for eight hours before their normal shift starts, which is four hours less than the required 12. To get back to their normal shift a total time off of 32 hours will be required. Also, if shifts are rotated (which is a common practice with shift workers), shift rotations will require a minimum period of 24 hours off.”

Calling on the ‘consecutive hours of rest’ to be reduced from 12 to eight hours, the BCCEC also recommended that the legislation allow this to be “subject to change by mutual consent or overridden in cases of emergency”.

The BCCEC added that the proposal to establish an employee’s ‘fixed day off’ at the start of their employment, and only allow it to be changed through written agreement, “does not take into consideration employment where the hours of work are irregular.

“Both shift and non-shift workers can fall into this category. For example, some shift workers by the nature of their shifts may have a rolling series of days off with no one day being fixed.”

And the BCCEC also warned that the proposed reform requiring employees to be paid when they did not work on a public holiday would affect hourly-paid staff.

“This effectively changes the description of hourly paid employees as being paid when they work and not paid when they don’t work. This provides for hourly paid staff to be paid for time not worked,” the BCCEC said.