The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The private sector was able to achieve “far greater balance” on the labour law reforms passed by the Senate yesterday, the Chamber’s chairman saying “all parties” had accepted its cost-related concerns.

Gowon Bowe told Tribune Business that the private sector’s week-long lobbying efforts, led by the Chamber and hotel industry, ultimately created “appreciation” among the Government and trade unions that great care needed to be taken on the cost of doing business.

Speaking after major changes were made to the Bills amending the Employment Act and Industrial Relations Acts, Mr Bowe said employers obtained their key demand, which was to drop the proposed 67 per cent increase in the redundancy pay cap.

“We certainly had quite a number of matters that we raised with them,” Mr Bowe said of negotiations between the private sector and the Government.

“The discussions were non-adversarial. It was really setting out some of the business parameters, and what the challenges facing the employers were.

“At the end of the day, there was appreciation that the costs of business have to be very carefully managed. We were able to achieve far greater balance than the first set of Bills produced”

The revised Employment Act and Industrial Relations Act reforms completely dropped plans to alter the redundancy ‘cap’, deleting the clause dealing with this in the initial Bill in its entirety.

Line staff, currently entitled to a maximum 24 weeks or six months’ redundancy pay under the Employment Act, gaining two weeks for each year they have been employed up to the 12-year ‘cap’, will continue to receive such compensation.

Previous proposals to increase the ‘cap’ to 32 weeks (16 years) immediately, and 40 weeks after two years, have been scrapped.

And managerial staff will continue to receive the existing 48 weeks (12 months/one year) redundancy pay maximum that they are due under the Employment Act, rather than an immediate increase to 64 weeks, followed by 80 weeks after two years.

“We were certainly pleased that one found acceptance with them,” Mr Bowe said of the redundancy ‘cap’ pull back.

He added that the private sector also “understood” the Government’s desire to clearly define ‘redundancy’ due to “concerns over the actions of a few in the past”, saying: “We were able to work through that with them in a meaningful way.

“There was a delicate balance to be struck by all parties, and as it relates to the primary concern of cost, that has been accepted by all parties, so we have to be positive that we were able to work together despite our differences.”

To balance the dropping of the redundancy ‘cap’ rise, the Government has made additional union-friendly reforms, with the changes allowing employees to obtain both redundancy pay and their non-contributory pension or gratuity.

The initial Employment Act draft required employees to choose one or the other, but now they can walk away with both - something permitted in the hotel industry for years, even though it is not law.

The Government has also agreed to another union demand by reducing the threshold for ‘agency shop’ from 60 per cent of workers voting in favour to 50 per cent plus one.

Mr Bowe reiterated the Chamber’s belief that pension provision was the best long-term protection for workers who are made redundant, adding: “All employers want to treat employees fairly.”

He also emphasised the need to introduce empirical-based data evidence into the National Tripartite Council’s deliberations at a much earlier stage, adding: “We know our work is cut out in the future to make sure the deliberations at the National Tripartite Council are more robust empirically.”

Obie Ferguson, the Trades Union Congress’s (TUC) president, acknowledged that the labour movement did not get everything it wanted with the reforms, but said there had been “some positive movement’ in protections for Bahamian workers.

“There’s been some improvement for the workers,” he told Tribune Business. “In this type of situation, where the employer is involved, one has to make an agreement having regard to all the social partners.

“In the approach to our new legislation we have to take everything into consideration, looking at what’s good for the union, what’s good for the employee, and what’s good for business and the economy.

“We would have preferred them [the Government] to so what they initially intended to do, but government tends to find a formula and balance and go straight down the alley, and in any negotiation it’s very rare you get precisely what you want.”