Letter
Proposal for a Cayman IslandsCouncil of Labour
Dear Sir:
In regards to the recently proposed establishment of a tripartitesystem in the Cayman Islands whereby the social and economic partnersnamely Government, labour and business can come together to negotiateand resolve issues of mutual concern.
My only concern with this situation is thatas it stands, there is a single voice for the Government and onefor business. But there is no single representation of all thelabour interest in the Cayman Islands. I know that the NationalAlliance of Cayman Islands Employees (NACE) has been trying toget Government to recognize it as the representative of labourin the Islands.
The problem with this is that, althoughNACE may be the only union at this time, they are not the onlylabour organization. There are others such as the Civil ServantsAssociation, the Caymanian Bar Association and the Pilots Associationamong others. These organizations represent labour interest withintheir specific industry or occupational groups. One of the advantagesof having such organizations is that the members are better servedby the organizations ability to exercise control over their ownresources and their own decision making process.
They are free, more or less, to make decisionsor take actions for the benefit of themselves and their particularoccupational group without undue interference; i.e. the Bar Associationcan raise money from their membership and elect to use the fundsto setup a scholarship fund specifically for disbursement to Caymanianlaw prospects.
This is in contrast with NACE where I'mmade to understand that within their structure there are varioussub- committees composed of particular labour sub-groups i.e.carpenters, secretaries, domestics, etc. The members of thesesub-groups are also members of the wider union. Their dues arecollected by the union and are under the direct control of theunion executive committee and not the sub-committee membership.So, therefore, the NACE carpenters could not take the same action,as the CBA could, without first getting the o.k. of the Union'smanagement.
Now I'm not knocking NACE or their way ofoperation and neither am I knocking any other labour group forthe way they do things. The modus operandi of any organizationis the prerogative of the membership. It's a matter of preference.Some groups would prefer to have the freedom and flexibility associatedwith the specific labour interest group and others prefer to havestrength in numbers that you get in a general labour organization.
I think the Minister of Labour in his recentcontribution to the throne speech set out the parameters underwhich the proposed system would operate, for example if therewere a dispute. The following course of events would probablyplay out:
The Government would consult the representativeof the employers; the (Minister mentioned the Chamber of Commerce)and get their position on the issue.
Then the Government would consult the representativeof the employees; (the Minister did not mention any specific groupbut alluded to the employees themselves being consulted).
Then, Government would either mediate aresolution between the parties or if it was a situation whichrequired Government action, then Government would take the courseof action which was in the best interest of the country; or whennot a matter of national significance, in the best interest ofthe majority of the people concerned.
So, if we transpose this into a hypotheticalscenario and let's say there was a problem within the hospitalityindustry specifically between one of the hotels and their employees.The issues in dispute being relevant to the entire industry andany resolution would probably have an impact on the industry asa whole.
Now, if we followed the guideline, Governmentwould consult the Chamber of Commerce for the employer's representation.Then I would guess the Chamber would then consult the CITA, whichwould in turn consult, the particular hotel directly or throughthe CITA's hotel committee or something like that. And representationwould flow back up the chain back to the Government. Someone pleasecorrect me if I'm wrong. Then the Government would seek representationfrom the employees.
But here's where they would have a problem.In the absence of a single representative labour body, the Governmentmay find itself receiving conflicting representation from individualemployees or employee groups, i.e. in the hotel situation, thedemands of housekeepers may differ substantially from that offood and beverage servers and or other hotel employees.
The Government may also find itself dealingwith conflicting or competing labour interest groups, i.e. thehousekeepers may be represented by NACE who may have one set ofdemands while hotel entertainment employees may have a differentset and be represented by the Musicians Association. This mightpose a problem in terms of the time that would be needed to consultwith each group or interest to obtain the overall labour position.The end result being an unduly cumbersome and inefficient resolutionprocess. Which might discourage the participation of the party'sin the future.
In my opinion, what is needed is a bodythrough which the various labour organizations can communicateand consolidate their positions resolving any issues in conflictprior to the tripartite negotiation stage avoiding any unnecessarywasting of time and money. I think labour has to conduct itselfin a responsible manner in order to maintain the confidence, cooperationand respect of the other two economic partners as well as thegeneral public.
What I would propose is a council, a Council of Labour so to speakwhich would be comprised of the heads of the various labour interestgroups such as the CICSA, NACE, CISA, CBA, CAPA, Nurses Association,Musicians Association and the Teachers Association if it can everget reformed. The Council of Labour, in the above-mentioned example,would function in much the same way that the Chamber of Commercewould have functioned.
The Government would consult the Council,which would consult the specific labour organization representingthe particular labour group. In the case of the hotel, the housekeepersand Food and Beverage (F&B) servers would make their representationvia NACE and the entertainment employees, via the Musicians Association,back to the Council of Labour.
Any discrepancies, conflicts or variancesin the positions of the housekeepers and the F&B servers wouldbe reconciled internally within NACE prior to going to the Council.But any discrepancies between that of the NACE position and thatof the musicians would be resolved at the Council before goingon the negotiating table. Thus, raising the level of efficiencyof the entire tripartite process.
The Council would be an ongoing entity,meeting regularly to allow members to air and debate issues ofconcern and could play a significant role in the up coming reviewof the Labour Law and the implementation of a minimum wage. Iwould suggest that the Minister of Labour mandate the formationof such an organization prior to the establishment of the tripartitesystem, which to my recollection is to be sometime in the latterpart of this year.
Having a single representative body for labour at the nationallevel where all the segments of labour can contribute to labourpolicy on a national level while still maintaining their autonomyand independence to function for the benefit of their membershipwithin their own particular industry/occupation sectors.
As well as providing a single channel ofcommunication between business, Government and the various labourinterest and, vice versa, would be an obvious asset and I wouldencourage the relevant parties to move in this direction.
Mike Hydes.