Back to the subject of the interpretation of the Industrial Relations Act for stakeholders: while I wait in anticipation for someone else to ask for an interpretation variation of some of the ambiguous sections of the act, let me bring attention to two of the words that are vital in addressing grievances in the workplace, but which curiously, like the interpretation of the word 'manager,' do not actually appear in the act itself. Practitioners are just expected to know about them, like you are expected to know which side of the street is left and which is on the right, even if there are no signs to tell you which is which.

These have to do with the nature of the disputes that arise at work and how they are dealt with.

There are two kinds of disputes which arise out of the interpretation of common law, namely 'disputes of right' and 'disputes of interest.' The distinction between the two and particularly between how they can be dealt with, and the historical background from which they arose rests on the maxim that there must be a difference in handling disputes based on the distinction between the two.

Disputes of right arise when a person is denied something they have been given as a right arising out of the law, out of their employment, or out of their membership in a recognised trade union that has negotiated a benefit in their behalf and which is recorded in a collective agreement during its currency and which in turn has been registered in the Industrial Court.

It is important to understand that once a collective agreement has been registered in the Industrial Court, it has the force of law. This is not so in Barbados, or in the same way in England or Wales, but it is in TT, and arose out of the refusal of colonial employers to give their employees the benefits they had agreed to, such as payment during illness (the correct interpretation of the term 'sick leave') or payment during absence during bereavement to provide a civilised burial for family members or co-workers who had perished in tragic accidents or criminal violence.

I recall an instance before this became law in TT when a manager refused a man time off to attend his wife's funeral, demanding that he delay it for two days because the manager had a project to complete. Managers can be unreasonable.

There are consequences when the right to take such leave has been denied, even after it has been recorded in writing in a collective agreement, although this is, admittedly, rare.

What people forget is that when one manager refuses to pay a worker who legitimately cannot work and earn a living for his (and just as often, her) family, in a small community such as ours it becomes known rapidly in the community, and those working for other companies become determined that they are not going to allow the inhumanity of that to happen in their company.

And industrial unrest ensues, anger against what is rightly perceived as injustice erupts and violence ensues which may be remembered and rese