by ALBERT BRANDFORD, Political Correspondent

MOST BARBADIANS, it seemed, breathed a sigh of relief – even if some may not want to admit it – when the country averted a national strike last week although the two industrial disputes remained unresolved.

Throughout the imbroglio, now entering its fourth week, the very different, disparate set of circumstances that gave rise to the threat of a nationwide shutdown by the largest private sector trade union, the Barbados Workers' Union (BWU), seemed to be evolving with public revelations each new day.

As Strike Day – Wednesday, February 20 – approached, many were heard wondering if the disputes had to reach such a sorry pass.

Was a nationwide strike really necessary, some asked?

Had all other options been exhausted?

Did all of the parties involved follow the long accepted, and in one case, the formally agreed upon, procedures for settling employee grievances?

Did the Union bypass all other "steps" in the process and jump to the last resort first and then found itself unable to climb back from the abyss?

Did the two employers ignore the custom and practice of industrial relations observed almost everywhere in the Free World – due process – in one case?

And in the other, was the firing mechanism too hastily activated before other elements of the process were employed?

It was around 10 a.m. on Friday, February 1, when about a dozen workers at the Broad Street branch of a jewellery store, the Royal Shop, walked off the job in solidarity with a colleague with less than two years' employment, who had been dismissed over a transfer order to the firm's Cruise Terminal outlet in the Bridgetown Port.

Three protests

The walk-out was one of three instances of worker protests across the private and public sectors on the same day – the others being in the administrative unit of the problem-plagued Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH), and at the Government's Telecommunications Unit at Warrens, St Michael.

Owners of the store, Mr and Mrs Hiranand Thani, explained in a paid advertisement in the Press on February 4, that the employee, Kimberley Beckles, had been terminated "for refusing to follow a legitimate instruction".

They denied assertions by the BWU that Beckles had been fired because she was a union shop steward.

"As word of Miss Beckles' dismissal spread," the Thanis' advertisement said, "several employees walked off their jobs at approximately 10 a.m. and remained outside of the Bridgetown store joined by one employee from the Cruise Terminal store and Miss Beckles.

"At 1:53 p.m. Management of the store went outside where they were congregated and informed them that if by 2:10 p.m. they had not returned to their respective posts, the company would assume that they had walked off their jobs. They bluntly refused and at 2:15 p.m. Management informed them that they were no longer employees of the store, as they had unilaterally walked off their jobs."

A BWU representative, Juliette Pollard, told the media that the store owner dismissed the workers at about 2:15 p.m.and "requested her showcase keys and stock books".

In the newspaper ad, the Thanis (Royal Shop) also denied any knowledge that Beckles was a union shop steward as it had received no information "– written or spoken – from the BWU as to who are the shop stewards".

"We reiterate that the employee in question was dismissed NOT because she is a member of the BWU; NOT because she was or is a shop steward; but because of her OUTRIGHT refusal to obey a legitimate instruction from management."

BWU general secretary, Sir Roy Trotman, meanwhile, called on Government to make it a "criminal offence" for employers who dismissed staff because they encouraged co-workers to be unionised.

"We are calling on the new [Democratic Labour Party] Administration to make good its manifesto pledge in this area," Sir Roy told the media the day after the walk-out.

"It has to enact legislation as a matter of great urgency to make it a criminal offence in this country for the behaviour being meted out to the workers at the Royal Shop, so that we will no longer have to hide, or be afraid or ashamed of their willingness to have associations with any organisation or trade unions of their choosing.

Criminalise behaviour

"The second thing Government needs to do is criminalise behaviour where the leader of a group of workers is singled out for victimisation and recrimination if they are the shop stewards or leaders," Sir Roy added.

As the BWU pleaded for a solution at the domestic level along with the rehiring of the workers, newly-elected Prime Minister, David Thompson, was expressing concern about trade unions not being recognised by some employers and the dismissal of workers for joining a trade union.

"We are very concerned about it," the Prime Minister said, "and the Union has even written to us [the DLP], as a party, prior to the [January 15] election, raising its concerns; and we definitely are not going to ignore the rights and concerns of workers."

Then, six days after the Royal Shop walkout, the worker unrest opened on a second front on February 6, spreading to the upscale St James hotel, Sandy Lane, where 17 workers were fired after walking off the job protesting the "unfair treatment" meted out to a room service waiter, Ian Greenidge, over a guest complaint that 17 000 Euros had been stolen from his room over the previous weekend.

The staffers were upset over reports that when Greenidge reported for duty around 4 p.m. on Monday, February 4, he was taken away by police to his home where a search, which did not recover any stolen money, was conducted.

Reports indicated that he was then taken to the Holetown Police Station for questioning, and he alleged that the police brutalised him.

BWU shop steward, Keith Davis, was concerned over the way the matter was handled.

"That individual should have been removed outside of the gate," Davis said. "Two undercover police entered the premises at Sandy Lane. So that means other employees would have seen what happened. Management says there are certain procedures in place to avoid embarrassment.

Investigations

"Proper investigations were carried out and on his return to work on Monday, he was taken away to the police station. It could have been any of us. We work in the room as well.

"We feel strongly about this, and until a representative from the union comes to hear our plight, we will be out here," Davis declared, to loud cheering from his colleagues.

The workers had gathered outside the Sandy Lane property from about 10 a .m., and reported that they had been instructed to return to their jobs by 11:05 a.m..

When they refused, management said they had walked off the job.

A Press release from the hotel later accused the workers of staging a "wildcat strike".

"The union informed us that they were not aware of the strike," the hotel said, "and we gave employees the option to return to work within a given period of time. The employees refused to follow correct procedures as outlined in the bargaining unit agreement and management consequently enforced disciplinary procedures."

In the case of Sandy Lane, the BWU has not denied that the correct procedural steps were not followed by its members at the hotel as are outlined in the grievance procedure section of the collective agreement - which I am told is common to all members of the Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association (BHTA).

A careful reading of the union's public statements on Sandy Lane would not reveal an endorsement of the workers' action, but its stance appears to be based on the ground that the level of punishment was excessive given that there seemed to be some misunderstanding about why the workers walked out.

The Sandy Lane's code is essentially similar to that of other large private sector companies – bearing about six points of commonality – though some in those companies are more exhaustive.

For example, one which I examined, included a definition of "grievance" where Sandy Lane's does not: " . . . a claim or dispute with the Company by an employee or employees, involving alleged violation by the Company of the terms of this Agreement".

"When any grievance arises, there shall be no interruption of work or other violation of this Agreement of any kind on account thereof, but the same shall be settled as promptly as possible in the following manner:- ...".

The first procedural step, which the two agreements have in common is that the employee(s) shall discuss all requests, complaints or differences with their immediate supervisor – no time frame for Sandy Lane, but within 48 hours for the other company.

Secondly, if there is no satisfactory settlement, at Sandy Lane, the Shop Steward shall enter into discussions with the supervisor or head of department.

In the other document, the second step provides for a union representative to discuss the matter with the supervisor within 48 hours; if that does settle the matter, then the union rep. moves on to the Department Head.

Thirdly, failing settlement there, at Sandy Lane, the provision is for the shop steward to consult with the Director of Human Resources; as it is at the other company – but within 48 hours.

The fourth step, common to both documents, is for a deputation of workers, accompanied by an officer of the union to be received by the employer, who in the case of the company above, may be accompanied by a representative of the Barbados Employers' Union, within four days.

At Sandy Lane, the stipulation is that the deputation shall be received "without unreasonable delay".

It adds: "Such requirement for a meeting shall be confirmed in writing outlining the reasons for the meeting at the request of either party."

The fifth step calls for a "joint conference"; in the case of the company, between the union and the representatives of the company, but at Sandy Lane, it may be between the Employers' Confederation and the union.

At Sandy Lane, it further states: "The Secretary of the Employers' Confederation or the Secretary of the Trade Union shall convene such a joint conference within seven (7) working days of the receipt of the application, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon."

Finally, both codes call for the matter to be referred to the Chief Labour Officer for "conciliation" if there was a failure to reach a settlement at the joint conference.

At the company above, however, it also provides that: "Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to prevent the Company from presenting to the union any grievance for disposition through the appropriate steps of the grievance procedure.

Company policy

It goes further: "In no case will the employees of the Company withhold their labour, or strike, indulge in a go-slow, a demonstration, or organised disturbance unless the grievance procedures outlined above have been exhausted to the fullest without settlement.

"In like manner, the Company shall not enforce any lockout on its employees until the above procedures have been exhausted without settlement."

Different case

As stated earlier, the case of the Royal Shop is entirely different from what obtained at Sandy Lane, if only because there is no collective agreement between that store and the BWU, and therefore there is no formal grievance procedure in place.

My investigations, however, revealed that the BWU apparently wrote (no copy of the letter was made available to me) the Royal Shop last year, but the store's principals did not meet with the Union at the domestic level either in December or in January this year, and the matter of a dismissal on December 1 was referred to the Chief Labour Officer.

It was also revealed that proposals on behalf of the Royal Shop workers were submitted by the BWU on January 17, but up to the time of writing (last Friday), the union had not received a reply.

All of the parties involved in either dispute have agreed, following Government's intervention last Tuesday, not to discuss the matters further with the Press – a kind of self-imposed "gag order".

But it is clear from the foregoing, that none of the parties in either of these disputes followed either the steps outlined in the formal grievance procedures, or the accepted custom and practice in industrial relations where there is no collective agreement.

In both cases, management could have employed other disciplinary measures such as warnings and suspensions before reaching the termination stage; and in the case of the Royal Shop, the main issue seems to be one of recognition of the BWU as bargaining agent for workers.

But if that firm refuses to meet with the union, then it is difficult to fault the BWU for using the strike weapon as "first resort" on behalf of its frustrated members.

Still, with or without a collective agreement, there is something called due process – and natural justice – that governs grievances.

People who are accused have a right to be heard in their defence – in the presence of their accuser – and should be able to take someone to support them whether that be a union representative, a lawyer, or a relative.