Given the uncertain economic situation of Trinidad and Tobago, there are a number of issues relating to industrial relations that are bring disputed and which both employers and unions appearing on behalf of aggrieved workers should be aware of, in order to “take in front before in front takes you.”
Following the sporadic periods of lockdown ordered by Cabinet over the past two years which resulted in no income for small and medium-sized entrepreneurial enterprises and massive lay-offs, and in too many cases closure of small businesses, the recent relaxation of restrictions has led to an effort by some of the more hopeful people to try again.
This has been made difficult for startups, or re-startups, by the recent policies adopted by banks throughout the Caribbean to pursue what is called “de-risking.”
Part of the reason for this, no doubt, is due to the sad international reputation TT has gained as a money-laundering centre; the other is, one suspects, directly due to government’s policies of forced closures of commercial enterprises that resulted in respondents’ defaulting on loans and mortgages.
Even where the loans by banks were in theory backed by property assets, some assets lost value, and as a result, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which employ most people, workers and managers without distinction, defaulted. And banks, afraid of losing profits, no longer accept the risk startup, or re-startup business loans represent.
[caption id="attachment_954198" align="alignnone" width="1024"] An Industrial Court report. - ROGER JACOB[/caption]
By now, most people are aware of supply-chain economics and consequential development of policies by governments of lockdowns leading to market failures, which in turn led to layoffs in employment, which led to defaults on loans (both individual and commercial), which resulted in the closure of small enterprises.
As the first attempts at re-starting began this year, many SMEs, trying to minimise risk themselves, took to recruiting part-time contract labour, rather than permanent local employees. I am told by a reliable source that the Ministry of Works depended for years on this form of employment to fulfil its project requirements. And as everyone and their cousin is aware, roadworks and URP systems have always operated on that basis.
It is only in the private sector, however, that the distinction between status of “contract of service,” ie permanent employees, versus those employed under “contract for services,” ie contract employment, gets to the Industrial Court for determination.
The disputes usually arise when such an employee’s contract is terminated. People are desperate for work, having been unemployed for months; children are back to school, having outgrown uniforms and shoes; and medical procedures put off for two years are now getting critical. Medical fees, like the cost of food, have escalated.
The distinction between permanent and contract employment makes a huge difference
