News Feed

October 27, 2016 - United win Manchester derby Juan Mata struck to win a tight Man ... +++ October 27, 2016 - IAAF wants Bolt’s services KINGSTON, Jamaica – IAAF Pres ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Proper shutdown protocol needed, says Bynoe The Department of Emergency Managem ... +++ October 27, 2016 - ‘Out of touch’ Economist Ryan Straughn says the la ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Lowe looking to protect the south coast A senior policymaker has warned tha ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Road Hockey 5s hit halfway mark After three weeks of competition th ... +++

Harsher penalties for employers needed

If acting general secretary of the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) Roslyn Smith had her way, employers who disobeyed an order to reinstate or re-engage an employee would be made to pay a hefty penalty.

Section 37 of the Employment Rights Act states that where an order for reinstatement of an employee or his re-engagement is made and the employee is re-engaged or reinstated but the order is not fully complied with, or if the employee is not reinstated or re-engaged, then the Employment Rights Tribunal shall award compensation to the employee, payable by the employer. The amount of that award would be influenced by several factors.

However, Smith has insisted that is not sufficient.

She said it was “miniscule” and was not enough of a deterrent.

Roslyn Smith

Roslyn Smith

“The employer would argue that reinstatement could increase tension at the workplace. There was an article by an employer who said that the worker is unruly and they really don’t want to take them back. But we are saying that if that is so there should be some kind of penalty added to that employer for that outcome,” the NUPW official said.

“We are saying that an employer should not be allowed to breach a person’s rights and get away with a mere monetary penalty. When a worker is given a lump sum what then happens to that worker? They need a regular salary . . . I would suggest that the penalty for not obeying an order to reinstate should be significantly more than what currently exists. I would recommend that workers should receive a minimum of two years wages. This would act as a deterrent so that employers would think twice before they act and ensure that they are acting on good grounds.”

Smith further argued that the chief labour officer should hear unfair dismissal cases while the Employment Rights Tribunal should handle appeals against decisions in these cases.

The existing legislation requires the chief labour officer to act as a conciliator in unfair dismissal cases.

“I find that the conciliation, which tries to get the parties to come to a meeting, does not work . . . I would prefer to see a situation where the chief labour officer hears the evidence and be allowed to make a decision. The Employment Rights Tribunal would then act as an appellant body. This would significantly improve what is now on the statute books,” she said.

“At present the chief labour officer is like a toothless bulldog on a short leash. The legislation binds him too tightly,” Smith contended, adding that the Labour Department was doing the

2 Responses to Harsher penalties for employers needed

  1. Carolyn Fulton
    Carolyn Fulton January 20, 2015 at 8:47 am

    I do not feel any employer should be forced to deal with unruly or disruptive employee’s. Maybe the board should add training on employer workplace etiquette, instead of forcing them down an employers throat.

  2. Frederick Walcott
    Frederick Walcott January 20, 2015 at 10:09 am

    Wonder if the union person would balance her arguement by calling for employers to be reimbursed with monies paid out as salaries, wages and benefits to employees who attend but do not “work”.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *