Orville Taylor | Consistency please

Poultry is never on my menu. Thus, when it is not sauce for the goose and gander alike, I cry fowl. There is something very beautiful about having consistent standards irrespective of the personalities involved. For example, some political sycophants have attempted to take me to task over my explanation of what the corruption perception index (CPI) means. With a low 44 out of 100, which the country has maintained between and the present, it is apparent that this little piece of rock in the Caribbean Sea is seen by our internal stakeholders and external observers as a country with a level of corruption just above moderate.

As in all previous years, my position is the same. Doubtless, we agree that any level of corruption is unacceptable, and the CPI is too high. Moreover, the government has not helped itself, based on the number of decisions and actions it has taken in recent years.

Yet, as stated multiple times in this column; inasmuch as the CPI is useful in determining our stature internationally, and certainly, the impact of our profile, it is really just an image.

True, it might correlate to the actual levels of corruption here; but it is not an accurate or actual measurement of governmental dishonesty.

In any event, for those who were so brave as to suggest that the clarification was my ‘giving a bly’ or ‘bye’ to the current administration, here is a reality cheque, which should only be cashed, if there is currency available.

NEED KETCHUP

During the period 2011 to 2016, the CPI was consistently kissing 40. So, if the anti-government advocates wish to rely on this statistic, then, they might need ketchup, or some other condiment, to eat some of the loosely spewed words, and swallow the inconvenient pill of accepting that by such a matrix, then the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) over the past six years, has shown less corruption than its predecessor People’s National Party’s (PNP) last five years in office.

Note, however, that it is not my assessment that the government is more or less corrupt than the PNP. All I am saying is that if one uses the same standard and arguments; the conclusions are inevitable.

Similarly, a recent matter involving workers of two bargaining units at the Jamaica Urban Transit Company (JUTC) led to a work stoppage and allegations that some workers being strident that two of their colleagues should be immediately dismissed.

Two unions were involved, the University and Allied Workers Union (UAWU) and the Union of Clerical Administrative and Supervisory Employees (UCASE).

Reports are that the behaviour of two workers amounts to serious misconduct. If true, severe sanctions are applicable.

While this case is being internally investigated, with a view of determining the facts, as well as the way forward, workers in the UAWU bargaining unit withdrew their labour, against alleged demands for their summary dismissal.

This year, 2025 being the 50th anniversary of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA) as well as that of UCASE, one would imagine that by now all participants in the industrial relations environment would have a firm understanding of the processes of dispute resolution, and the importance of having consistent approaches, where grievances and disputes arise.

NO EVIDENCE

Thankfully, there is no evidence that the union leadership of either of the unions was seeking the arbitrary termination of any employee, without due process. Our Labour Relations Code has very simple procedures, which even primary school children can follow, if they bother to shut their mouths, open their eyes and read.

Principles of natural justice militate against any knee or any other kind of anatomical jerk reaction, simply because of the gravity of the allegation. Beyond that, as in criminal matters, every single individual, however strong the prima facie evidence might appear to be, must undergo a process whereby, he is allowed to face accusations, defend himself, be defended, and only if found guilty, still have recourse before a higher authority.

This is not simply my opinion. It is in fact, settled law, and many a dismissal, which otherwise would have been found justifiable, has been vitiated merely because feelings, passion and copious doses of ignorance flavoured the decision.

Thankfully, the processes of conciliation have been engaged. After all, Section 6 of the LRIDA speaks to the role of the Ministry of Labour, where industrial disputes exist, and Section 9 of the act gives other kinds of instructions, when the dispute arises in an essential service.

Bear this in mind. However, it is about time that we stop treating grievances as disputes and work stoppages as industrial action in the truest sense of the definitions under the act.

For something to qualify as industrial action, there are three elements which have to be fulfilled. First, there must be an industrial dispute; and these you can only arise out of the contract of employment and relate to the responsibilities or rights of employers or workers.

This might surprise hot heads. Yet, as long as local level conversations are ensuing within an organisation, with a view to trash out a matter, there is no industrial dispute, because the parties have not finally disagreed.

Second, the ‘protest’ must be connected to the existing dispute, with the third criterion being an intention to reduce or stop production.

Strictly speaking, if the parties, that is employers and workers (union) have not reached a final disagreement; then there is no dispute and thus, no legal industrial action.

Good sense must prevail. In a country where homicides are our most impressive statistic, and there is a strong correlation between work practices and killings, the intercourse among the main players must improve.

My ears are cocked.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.