The role of the Ministry of Labour is multifaceted and not merely conciliatory

Dear Editor,

Even though we may not be able to convince Mr D Sookdeo, a former Assistant Chief Labour Officer, that his comments about the role of the Ministry of Labour are ill-founded and derisory, we will nevertheless attempt to clarify his obviously false and spurious misconceptions. He seems to have forgotten that the roles of the Ministry of Labour are multi-dimensional, but in so far as conflict resolution at the industrial level is concerned, it functions as conciliator, mediator and advisor. We wish to emphasize that conciliation is merely a sub-function of the ministry.

In his previous missive under the caption ‘Ministry of Labour should avoid a perception of bias in disputes’ (SN, February 17) he accused the ministry of being biased, but he appears to be unable to satisfy our request to show where any such incidence was evident.

Indeed, rather than responding to our request, Mr Sookdeo extended his unsubstantiated allegation by surmising that the ministry “makes decisions at conciliation such as proclaiming a strike illegal and justifying a dismissal…” (‘The role of the Ministry of Labour is conciliatory,’ SN, February 23). How on earth he arrived at such a tenuous position remains elusive to us. Perhaps he may wish to do the honourable thing and produce the evidence of this, or offer an apology for attempting to discredit the ministry. We did not make that pronouncement, we merely related to the unions, the contention of management.

That apart, he needs to be reminded that as the custodian of the system of industrial relations in this country, the Ministry of Labour, depending on the prevailing circumstances, is properly positioned to advise on the legality or illegality of a strike as well as the soundness or otherwise of any disciplinary actions inclusive of dismissal taken by any management or employer.

For emphasis sake, it is to be noted that this is not without precedent.

We have deduced from Mr Sookdeo’s utterances that at the level of conciliation the ministry need not exercise a firm and decisive opinion designed to direct and influence the parties to resolve the matter in a particular manner. With such a proposition, our philosophy is at variance.

Perhaps the good former Assistant Chief Labour Officer would like us to be fence-sitters devoid of ideas, reasoning and sound judgement.

It is a well-known fact that every day, members of the public as well as stakeholders from the public and private sector domains seek direction and interpretation of various aspects of the labour legislation and labour practices and signed Collective Labour Agreements from this ministry. In such instances, we endeavour to be fair, forthright and decisive. If that is acceptable at the individual, personal and private levels we see no harm in doing likewise at the level of conciliation. After all, much of the labour legislation in force today has benefited at the drafting stage, from the inputs of the technicians in the ministry.

If Mr Sookdeo does not find favour with our enlightened approach to conflict resolution, he may wish to astutely suggest a more suitable alternative, but we certainly will not embrace any methodology which has outlived its usefulness and is not of this era.

In our opinion, he may have been both reckless and irresponsible in his suggestion that dismissal letters should have been issued “to all strikers” from the UG and the GGMC, for acting in breach of their employment contracts.

Not that that was impossible, but he is quite aware that each matter is usually handled differently as its individual circumstance dictate. It is said in a particular environment that each case will turn on its own facts, ie, each case will be addressed differently. After all, there is no one size fits all solution in industrial relations.

Indeed, the records have shown that many strikers have in the past, in this country and further afield, been justifiably dismissed for their participation in an illegal strike and to this day their dismissals have remained unshakable.

We are not advocating such a dispensation, but we are sure that Mr Sookdeo would recall the incidents at the National Restaurant and the OMAI gold operations.

Those are situations of the past. Today workers are protected under several pieces of legislation including the Termination of Employment & Severance Pay Act.

Apparently, Mr Sookdeo is determined to mischievously criticize the Ministry of Labour without any regard to the fact that misinformation and misconceptions can be erroneously embraced to the detriment of employees.

If needs be, at the opportune moment we may comment on his revealed modus operandi during the time when he functioned in the ministry.

In concluding we hereby reiterate that the role of the Ministry of Labour is multifaceted and is not merely conciliatory in nature.

It would be remiss of us if we did not remind Mr Sookdeo of the need to acquaint himself with the facts pertaining to any matter, before tendering an opinion thereon.

 

Yours faithfully,
Charles Ogle
Chief LOSH Officer