Vacation shield
Minister of Labour Dr Esther Byer-Suckoo. (FP)
By Albert Brandford | Tue, January 24, 2012 - 12:09 AM
Tough new sanctions, including a $10 000 fine and a year’s imprisonment, are on the way for employers who deny workers annual vacation or refuse to pay them during that period.
These penalties are part of proposed new legislation to repeal the 1952 Holidays With Pay Act that is on the Order Paper for debate when the House of Assembly meets today at 10 a.m.
Minister of Labour Dr Esther Byer-Suckoo is expected to pilot the measure, which is designed to make better provision for the granting and calculation of the annual holiday due to an employee; increase the penalties (up from $100 and three months’ jail) for offences under the act; and make better provision for the Chief Labour Officer to initiate proceedings for offences.
These penalties will be imposed on any employer who refuses to allow an employee to take an annual holiday to which he is entitled under the act; fails to pay any employee the average pay or part thereof to which he is entitled; fails to keep records; knowingly enters or causes to be entered in the records any false particular; and wilfully delays or obstructs the Chief Labour Officer or any person duly authorised by him in the exercise of any power under the act.
Read the full story in today's DAILY NATION.
- Editor's Choice
- Most Read Stories Today
- US$52m loan in bag
- Not so!
- ‘It was not our poll’
- $700m food bill
- Jamaica's Busy Signal denied bail
- DEAR CHRISTINE: Pregnant for married man
- Private sector head: Time for action
Recent Comments
- dirty okra commented on DEAR CHRISTINE: Pregnant for married man
- Pan Wallie commented on Idol winner Phillip Phillips
- Pan Wallie commented on Perfect school attendance
- Pan Wallie commented on Eyes ahead!
- yogi Ni commented on $700m food bill
_medium-135x135.jpg)
Share your thoughts
Please sign in or register to post your comments.
Page 1 of 1 pages
That we should “need” such a draconic penalty, speaks poorly for those employers so guilty. However, as is often the case, what has NOT been said, might be even more significant. to"justify” the need for this legislative effort:-
1. Just what percentage of employers, are so guilty?
2. Is implementation of this penalty going to be effective?
3. Is is just possible, that when a country (say, like France, and Spain) load up employers with onerous “safeguards” for workers, that employers will be less inclined to hire folks, and maybe, shift their business into a hi-tech-intensive (say, internet-based) operation?
4 If Madam Minister was a good , productive worker in business “X”. but had a S.O.B. boss, is it impossible to conceive that she would go elsewhere to work; that her stupid boss would lose a key worker, to her next (more enlightened) boss elsewhere? That’s called the free-market system, which I thought operated in this beautiful little country. N’est pas?
Q.E.D.
Elections near!
- 0
- 0
Comment LinkPenalties if employers do this, penalties if employers do that, penalties if employers do not pay for jury duty, penalties if employers fire, penalties if employers talk to employees, and so on…
Many employees are abusing their employers, employers are losing business, closing down because employees have more power than employer.
Jury duty abused extensively, employees do not show up to work or court for weeks, on the pretence that they are at court all day on jury duty, and will not provide any detail of their attendance to employers. As usual employer has to pay full pay and also has to find a temporary person to fill up that postion. BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER HAS NO RIGHT TO ASK OR DO ANYTHING, NO WONDER MANY COMPANIES ARE GOING BANKRUPT.
- 11
- 3
Comment LinkAbuse of civic duty is easily proved or disproved.
Classic mis-treatment of employees )no vacay etc.) is often ignored, or previously unpunished because -
PEOPLE NEED THEIR JOB!
If common decency is an insult to a business person, don’t own a business
- 0
- 0
Comment LinkPage 1 of 1 pages