Diana Mahabir-Wyatt
Before the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) was passed in 1972, most parties aggrieved over what they considered to be an unjust or unfair dismissal only had three choices – get their fellow workers to go on strike in their support; ask for a second chance; or look for another job.
Before the passage of the predecessor 1962 Industrial Stabilisation Act, the employer was at liberty to dismiss an employee for whatever reason he wished. He didn’t have to give his reasons for the dismissal or justify it.
After the passage of the 1972 Industrial Relations Act, with the establishment of the Industrial Court, laws changed, and any dismissal the court considered to be harsh, oppressive, unreasonable or unjust could be subject to a court order for reinstatement, re-employment or compensation.
Over time, the act underwent many adjustments and the criterion the court now uses is whether the dismissal is “harsh and oppressive or not in accordance with the principles of good industrial relations” and can “make such order or award in relation to any dispute before it, as it considers fair and just, having regard to the interests of the persons immediately concerned and the community as a whole.”
Parties to a dispute know that IRA Article 18 (1) states: “Subject to subsection (2) the hearing and determination of any proceedings before the court and an order or award or any finding or decision of the court in any matter (including an order or award) – (a) shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called into question in any court on any account whatever; and (b) shall not be subject to prohibition, mandamus or injunction in any court on any account whatever.”
That is one of the most powerful statements to be found in any law in the canon in any jurisdiction anywhere.
However, the environment has changed since 1972. Justice Isaac Hyatali, who called the Industrial Court “not so much a court of law as a court of human relations,” through his wisdom and knowledge, taught a whole country what is meant by “principles and practices of good industrial relations,” and restrained the authoritarianism of managers who dismissed employees who were impolite or bad-tempered, just short of being insubordinate.
I remember being in court, sitting politely at the back of the room, trying to restrain myself from grinning when listening to a dismissal case in which a worker was terminated for steupsing in response to an admonition by a general manager who was offended thereby.
Over the years, the industrial-relations climate changed, along with the introduction of the GATE system, providing legal education to students hitherto unable to enter law school.
Transport facilitation has also changed, enabling hundreds of thousands of foreign-used vehicles into the country, making travelling to work and school an hours-long nightmare for thousands of people and latecoming, a rule broken by students and employees, punishable by disciplinary action.
The old rules about timekeeping had not shifted
