The Tribune

• Union complains law not followed

• Says industrial deal not registered

• Most affected staff there 35+ years

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The minister of labour was yesterday urged to “intervene” in the planned termination of 24 Morton Salt workers amid union complaints that the company had failed to follow the law or their industrial agreement.

Obie Ferguson, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) president who acts as the legal representative for the Morton Salt line staff union, told Tribune Business that Dion Foulkes, his ministry and the Department of Labour needed to involve themselves in a situation where the salt harvester had failed to follow the redundancy provisions set out in the Employment Act.

He also raised fears that the company may not honour provisions in the two sides’ recently-signed industrial agreement where it agreed to offer termination/redundancy pay up to a maximum of 40 weeks for line staff, which is significantly in excess of the Employment Act’s statutory minimum of 24 weeks or six months’ pay.

A Morton Salt spokesman did not return Tribune Business calls and messages seeking comment before press time. However, Mr Ferguson argued that Mr Foulkes and his officials have an extra obligation to intervene in this particular situation as the minister presided over certain aspects of the two sides’ industrial agreement negotiations.

And he further asserted that then-registrar of trade unions/director of labour, John Pinder, had failed to issue the certification confirming that Morton Salt’s industrial agreement with the Bahamas Industrial Manufacturers & Allied Workers Union (BIMAWU) was properly registered with the Department of Labour.

Morton Salt informed Mr Foulkes of the imminent redundancies in an August 6, 2021, letter that has been obtained by Tribune Business.  Vivian Moultrie, the Inagua-based salt harvester’s operations manager, confirmed that 18 line staff and six managerial staff will be impacted, eight of whom have been with the company for 40 years or more. Another five have been employed for between 35-39 years, with the longest serving racking up 46 years.

The redundancies were justified on the basis that available work had “diminished” while there were no other roles the impacted employees were capable of performing. Mr Moultrie, revealing that the redundancies are set to take effect from August 23, 2021, said: “As a result of the prevailing circumstances, particularly those associated with the current plant efficiencies, it is necessary to make the employees redundant as the requirements of Morton Bahamas for employees to carry out the work done by the employees have diminished and are not expected to return for the foreseeable future.

“Further, we are able to confirm that efforts towards reassignment have been made to the greatest extent possible, and that there are currently no other positions within Morton Bahamas which require filling or to which the employees’ experience and skill set would be relevant. 

“Outside of the employees, Morton Bahamas does not intend to make any other employees redundant at this time. In accordance with the Employment Act, should Morton Bahamas have cause to recruit employees in roles relevant to the employees within the ensuing 12 months, the employees will enjoy priority in this selection process.”

Those impacted range from maintenance and production supervisors to equipment operators, mechanics, technicians and plant operators. However, Mr Ferguson asserted that Morton Salt had breached the law’s redundancy provisions by failing to write to union president, Jennifer Brown, and give her two weeks’ notice of the terminations.

Asserting that the union president had denied receiving any such letter from the salt harvester, he blasted: “Under the Employment Act, the redundancy provisions in section 26 a) require that the employer notify the union with two weeks’ notice.

“The two weeks’ notice must be in writing to the president. That did not happen. They sent a notice to the minister, but did not send a notice to the union. The two sides ought to have had a meeting, and go through the process of selecting who was made redundant and when it was to take effect.

“What we’re saying is that the employer, Morton Salt’s, action is unfair and they ought to be made to deal with this matter under unfair dismissal because they are in breach of section 26 a).”

Mr Ferguson also questioned whether Morton Salt would uphold the 40 weeks’ maximum redundancy payout clause in the two sides’ new industrial agreement despite the Department of Labour’s failure issue the certification of registration even after the changes it recommended were made.

Describing the upcoming redundancy exercise as “very disingenuous”, the TUC chief nevertheless conceded: “We’re not saying the company cannot make employees redundant. The law provides for it, and certain economic situations dictate it. I do not object to it if that is the correct position.

“All we’re saying is that if you’re going to do it, if the situation arises, follow what you agreed to. It [redundancy] is not a major problem. The world has changed, circumstances have changed and if you do it, do it in the correct way.

“If you are going to exercise redundancy and the situation warrants it, you have an Act that says how the process is to be handled in the absence of an industrial agreement. Where you have an industrial agreement you are supposed to comply with it.”

Pointing out that the majority of workers impacted have been with the company for “a very, very long time” of 35 years or more, Mr Ferguson said he was now awaiting instructions from the union president before determining the next move.

“These are the type of matters the department of labour, minister of labour, ought to intervene in because the minister was part of the [industrial agreement] negotiations,” he added. “The minister of labour in some instances presided over these matters and it came to an end.

“The ministry made some recommendations with respect to the law, and the union and company met and agreed to correct the industrial agreement. It was sent on to the ministry and not registered for whatever reason. That requires a ministerial intervention.”