
Unions still pushing to represent private security guards
|
BY BALFORD HENRY
Observer writer Friday, December 29, 2006
|
LABOUR unions have resolved to intensify their efforts to gain representational rights for more than 12,000 private security guards who the companies insist are private contractors.
 |
| MORRISON... I have written the minister of labour and social security seeking an urgent meeting to discuss the current situation |
"I have written the minister of labour and social security seeking an urgent meeting to discuss the current situation," president of the National Workers Union (NWU) Vincent Morrison, said on Tuesday.
Morrison's comments, and those of his colleagues in the trade union movement, have been triggered by a recent Appeal Court ruling, quashing an award made by the Resident Magistrate's Court last year in favour of the minister, which had sought criminal sanctions against Marksman Limited for alleged breaches of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA).
The Corporate Area RM court convicted Marksman and one of its directors, Valerie Juggan-Brown, last November for failing to provide the ministry with information required to facilitate a representational rights poll. The poll involved the United Union of Jamaica (UUJ), led by James Francis, which has been seeking to represent the workers since 2003. The company was fined $500,000 and the director $50,000.
The ministry requested the information after the UUJ had provided it with a copy of a Form 2 application for bargaining rights, which it reportedly had sent to Marksman. However, earlier this month, the Appeal Court quashed the conviction after agreeing with the attorney for Marksman, Winston Spaulding QC, that there was no evidence to prove that the company actually received the Form 2, although the company conceded that it had received a letter from the UUJ.
"The judgment seems a little bit hazy to me. What it really means is that, for the minister to satisfy himself that the form has been properly served, he will have to introduce new measures and new provisions in the law, which we are not sure are practical. How will he ensure that the form has been received?" Morrison responded.
Francis said Tuesday that while he was pleased that the court had not made a determination against the union in terms of the company's other claim that it employs contractors and not security guards, he was very concerned about this decision. "This is a setback for our efforts to organise the guards, and we need to have a meeting with the ministry to find out what went wrong and how it went wrong," Francis told the Observer.
The other union involved in the issue is the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU), whose vice-president Wesley Nelson was a member of the Joint Industrial Council (JIC) for the industry, which existed up to the late 1980s.
Nelson told the Observer that the court's decision was a major setback to the unions' efforts to organise what he described as "the most exploited group of workers in Jamaica".
"I think the Government has to take the initiative in bringing those who consistently breach the labour regulations to justice, and I think that they should start by refusing them contracts in the public sector," Nelson suggested.
The issue of whether the workers in the industry can be regarded as "workers" as defined in the LRIDA, and therefore, have the right under the law to union representation, is expected to come up before the court soon, in a case involving the NWU and Ranger Security.
There are some 15,000 people employed in the industrial security sector, of whom less than 10 per cent are unionised. Although the companies insist that they are private contractors, they are supervised, assigned work shifts and paid on a fortnightly basis - conditions which, both the ministry and the trade unions insist, meet the definition of a "worker" under the LRIDA.
Most of them work 12-hour days and above the 40-hour work week provided for in the National Minimum Wage Act without overtime pay. But although the definition was expanded recently the companies insist that they are not workers but contractors.
The current definition in the Act relates to "an individual who has entered into, or works, or normally works (where the employment has ceased) under a contract, however described in circumstances where that individual works under the direction, supervision and control of the employer regarding hours of work, management of discipline and such other conditions as are similar to those which apply to an employee."
|
|
| Related Articles |
| No
related articles were found |
| |
|
|
|