By G. A. Dwyer Astaphan
.jpg)
The termination of 100 Marriott workers has created quite a jolt throughout St.Kitts.
After all, it’s 100 workers. Not 5 or 6.
And even if it was 5 or 6, it would have been 5 or 6 adults who, if not male breadwinners, are females who are mostly single mothers, earning closer to minimum wage than to top wage (although all workers at all levels have expenses), in some cases being saddled with all or most of the expenses and other burdens of carrying their families, with limited job skills (and even if they had broad job skills, there would be no jobs easily available in the present economic circumstances), and so on.
So 5 or 6 would still have been stressful and traumatic.
Even if it was just 1 worker, it would have been tough.
And now with the 100 terminated, there will be the knock-on psychological, social and economic effects on 100 families, on the communities, on the small, medium and large enterprises with which these terminated workers have been doing their business, such as buying food, medication, health and beauty products, day care, restaurants, banks, credit unions, hire purchase operators, insurance services, entertainment providers, transporters, doctors, lawyers, and so on, not to forget our churches, which depend so greatly on the contributions of their members in order to fortify the fabric of faith in our nation.
And, of course, there will now be the loss of revenue to Social Security with these 100 workers unable to make contributions to the scheme, on top of which plenty money will now have to be found to disburse severance pay to them.
It is, and it is going to be, tough for them and for the rest of us.
Remember, 100 workers represent between ½ % and 1% of our nation’s total work force. And in the context of our economy and society, that is a very large amount of workers to be laid off in one shot.
In fact, I cannot recall such a large number being laid off before in one shot except for when the sugar industry was closed in 2005.
Firing 100 workers in one fell swoop in our economy means that at least 400 people will now suffer directly, presuming that each of those workers has 3 dependents.
It’s tough.
I have commented publicly on the matter, and I have responded to the gracious invitation of Minister of Labour, Mr. Sam Condor, to share my views and recommendations with him.
In a nutshell, and based on the information which I have, I believe that the Marriott Hotel’s Management did not follow the procedure outlined by the Protection of Employment Act, 1986.
Section 5 of that Act lists the criteria for redundancy and termination which are as follows:
1. the employer has discontinued or ceased to carry on all or part of his business;
2. he has modernized, automated or mechanized all or part of his business;
3. he has reorganized his business to improve its efficiency;
4. the employer finds it impossible to carry on his business at the usual rate or level due to shortage of material or mechanical breakdown or for any cause beyond his control;
5. he is forced to reduce his business due to lack of or change in markets;
6. he dies and his business ceases to operate; and
7. the business goes into liquidation or bankruptcy.
In its termination letter of 16th April, 2009, Marriott erred when it told these 100 workers that their jobs had been “affected by organizational change”.
There was no organizational change. The 100 workers were terminated because of a reduction in business.
Further, I don’t believe that there is anything on record to prove that the Hotel had sent a written notice to the Labour Commissioner at least one month before the terminations which it is obliged to do under Section 7 of the same Act.
Section 7 states that where an employer contemplates terminating the employment of ten or more employees on any of the seven grounds listed immediately above, he shall, not less than one month before any proposed termination, send a written notice to the Labour Commissioner including the reasons for the terminations, the number and categories affected, the period over which the terminations are intended to be carried out, and a summary of the results of the consultations (note that the word” consultations” is in plural in the Act) with any trade union representing the employees.
There being no trade union representing the employees, I suggest that such “consultations” would have had to occur anyway, given the fact that a union represents workers, and if there is no such representation then the “consultations’ must be with the workers themselves.
This summary which the Act calls for would show that consultations were held and that everybody understood that termination would take place, and so on.
But, as far as I am aware, only one such meeting was held, a month or so earlier, and in that meeting the understanding was that 10 plus, maybe as many as 30, workers might be laid off. None of the workers seemed to have left that one meeting with any other impression.
So, as justice and fairness would dictate, the requirement for full and open consultation and understanding was not met. And on this point, the notice to the Labour Commissioner also fails.
In this vein, it is to be noted that Section 44(1)(c) of the Act states that any person who misrepresents or fails to disclose any material fact shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable, inter alia, to a fine not exceeding $2,500.00. And the defectiveness of the notice might throw the Marriott under this section of the Act.
Could this failure be multiplied 100 times?
And sending a letter to the Labour Commissioner on 14th April for a 16th April mass termination just does not jive. At least, not in my books.
But let me say this: I am happy that we have the Marriott, and I want it to remain here for many, many years to come. It is critical to our nation’s social and economic development.
Nevertheless, things must be done right and people must be treated fairly and respectfully.
And I hope and pray that the discussions which Minister Condor has undertaken to hold with the Marriott, and it would be good if a few of the workers could be present, will serve to tidy up this matter and help in the process to reduce the trauma to the workers, their families and the community.
Regarding workers being present, Section 43 of the Act provides for both parties to be present where a complaint is brought before the Labour Commissioner. So even if neither party has, I think it would be the right thing to have workers represented at the Minister’s upcoming meeting.
My hope is that the record will change the termination to lay-offs, as this could help some workers who were there for less than a year.
And let me say this. The terminations must be impacting the workers who are still on the Marriott’s payroll.
I also hope that an effort will be made on behalf of these terminated workers, and all others like them to:
1. secure employment;
2. secure counselling and comfort;
3. secure training in skills and personal and money/resource management;
4. encourage them to be self-sufficient and become as many as possible of them, entrepreneurs;
5. ask the banks and other credit houses (including NHC) to give these workers a moratorium on principal payments for six months and a waiver of interest over that period, or such other shorter period as they may remain unemployed;
6. Expand and extend the concessions on food barrels and other forms of externally provided sustenance until they can regain employment;
7. Procure Social Security’s blessings in waiving their contributions for the said six-month period or for such shorter period as they may remain unemployed;
8. Encourage Marriott to take on as many of them as possible with the incentive that Government would subsidize the operation in the form of a grant of a portion of the Island Enhancement Fund which the Government receives from the Hotel. Or, in the same vein, the Government must ensure that it collects the Hotel Accommodation tax for that Hotel and pass back some of it to help it retain workers on staff; and
9. Ensure that no foreigners are holding jobs which locals can do and if that is the case revoke such work permits and seek to place locals in those jobs, and rationalize and review all work permits there and elsewhere so that Kittitians and Nevisians get first choice at jobs in this country.
With regard to work permits generally, it is my opinion that we need to review the CARICOM arrangements.
Until Next Time, Plenty Peace.
