DIANA MAHABIR-WYATT

As the body of jurisprudence in the field of industrial relations grows in the Caribbean and inter-regional commerce increases, it is important for employees and employers to take a look at what is promoted by the Industrial Labour Organisation (ILO) as good industrial practice is applied.

Before going further, I must admit that even the ILO is not infallible when applying those practices and procedures.

Practices expressed as being good by a conference committee, consisting mainly of delegates from a first-world country, may be impractical for third-world countries and too expensive for employers and governments (who are also employers).

There is a lot of politics in the UN system, and in the way the democratic majority voting process, which leads to decision-making about conventions and recommendations, takes place.

Even something as simple as the standard of acceptable workers' apparel can be the focus of lobbying when it stumbles against head coverings or some other cultural specificity related to gender.

In a dismissal case contested as being unjustified, three workers opted to give evidence for themselves and not via a union representative, which is their right.

The individual who chaired the tribunal ruled that the decision must be based on evidence, and in order to give a decision, the judges on the tribunal had to fairly listen to the evidence of everyone entitled to be represented at the hearing. He was willing to listen, but the workers would not respond to his cross-examination.

There is a myth going around that if the accused does not give evidence or defend themselves, a tribunal cannot rule against them.

That is not true. A court or tribunal must allow the accused the opportunity to defend themselves. If they are given the opportunity and refuse to take it up, the court/tribunal must then base its decision on the evidence given to it, which will be the employer's evidence alone.

As Lord Denning said: "No doubt, the tribunal must observe the rules of natural justice, but this does not mean that it must be tested by cross-examination. It only means that the tribunal must give the other side a fair opportunity of commenting on it and of contradicting it.'

The company's evidence was based on the disappearance of several kits containing specialised sewing needles and related equipment not available locally. Over several months, these kits had been disappearing periodically, and this was beginning to cost the company a fair amount of money and moreso the inconvenience of the replacement procurement.

The women who handled the equipment were divided into three shifts: 2 pm-10 pm; 10 pm-6 am and 6 am-2 pm. The night-shift supervisors were experienced in safety and security, as was the morning supervisor, a former policeman, who took over for the 6 am shift when it was often still rainy and dark.

The sewing kits were usually found missing when workers took over the morning shift, which was manned by three Muslim women, refugees from inland Guyana, but