The Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados (CTUSAB) has thrown its weight behind the Protection of Wages Bill, while warning that its impact will be limited without robust enforcement and insisting that government must face the same legal consequences as private employers for late or unpaid wages.
At the umbrella body’s monthly press conference, CTUSAB General Secretary Dennis De Peiza noted that while the bill has already been passed in Parliament, the trade union movement believes it is vital to record its position and advocate for necessary operational adjustments.
While acknowledging that CTUSAB aligns itself with the principles of fair treatment endorsed by social partners such as the Barbados Workers’ Union, the Barbados Employers’ Confederation, the Barbados Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Barbados Coalition of Service Industries, De Peiza insisted that statutory provisions mean very little without active enforcement.
“CTUSAB is very much, I must say in principle, at this point [in] support for the Protection of Wages Bill,” De Peiza noted. “The congress emphasises that there must be enforcement of the provisions of the legislation. I repeat that… there must be enforcement of the legislation if this thing is to be taken seriously. If workers have to be treated fairly and not to be disadvantaged, then it requires that we ensure that the employers honour their obligation to the workers.”
Focusing on the new law’s penal framework, the general secretary welcomed the introduction of explicit penalties aimed at delinquent employers who fail to remit statutory payments.
“CTUSAB against that backdrop welcomes the penalties to be imposed on those employers who have failed to make the employee’s national insurance payment and other authorised deductions,” he explained.
But he cautioned that financial penalties alone do not offer a guaranteed deterrent if the judicial channels for resolving disputes remain sluggish. De Peiza warned against procedural delays that leave aggrieved employees languishing without remedy, underscoring that CTUSAB “accepts that while the fines to be imposed may be seen as a deterrent, there must be a clear understanding that justice delayed is justice denied.”
To ensure the law functions effectively, De Peiza insisted that clear statutory timelines must be built into the operational regulations governing wage disputes, warning against extended periods of uncertainty for victims.
“Hence this necessitates that clear time frames and deadlines are established within the rules for the hearing and conclusion of any case brought by an employee against the employer,” De Peiza said. “It should not be allowed that the victim experiences an extended period of suffering due to the slow enactment of the process.”
A major concern for CTUSAB involves the dynamic between private obligations and state exemptions. De Peiza highlighted what the umbrella body views as a glaring inconsistency within the legislative framework regarding the exemption of state entities from legal penalties when public officers suffer from late payment of wages or deductions.
“This is wholly inconsistent with the practice as it applies to fairness and the equality of treatment before the law,” De Peiza argued. “If this is to suggest that the State as the employer is above the law, then we have problems. So we are saying that we do not believe that the State is above the law.”
The general secretary pointed out that government departments and statutory agencies have historically been guilty of late salary disbursements, frequently offering administrative excuses such as pending payment approvals.
“Why should the law hold private sector employers to one standard and the government to another?” De Peiza questioned. Expanding on the plight of public servants, he insisted that public officers who face severe delays in receiving their compensation must be granted clear legal latitude to pursue redress through the courts.
“Notwithstanding this, there must be some latitude extended to a public officer to take the government as an employer to court for a breach of the very law that the State imposes,” he said. “The worker has not been paid for work …. There should be no restraint of pursuing this matter before the law courts for compensation for inconvenience and suffering caused.”
Addressing internal public management, the general secretary emphasised that payment delays in the public service are largely the result of internal administrative friction rather than technical impossibilities.
He noted that the government routinely issues pay schedules, and that “it’s a standing practice for government to release a schedule of the annual paydays for public sector employees, and hence, barring any technological system failures, there can be no valid reason for delayed payment of persons…. It would seem that any undue delays and discrepancies may be ascribed to administrative inefficiencies. This, in part, is a bureaucratic problem which must be remedied within public sector management.”
De Peiza urged the authorities to address practical banking hurdles that exacerbate financial stress for low-income workers paid by cheque who face transactional charges or lack minimum balance requirements.
“Provisions should have been made to alleviate the stress suffered by those workers who are paid by cheque and do not have a bank account to deposit the cheque in order to have it redeemed.
“Moreover, employees have to deal with the application of a transactional banking fee, which is imposed. This should not be allowed and needs to be addressed by the requisite government authorities.”
The post CTUSAB demands equal treatment for state, private employers in wage protection law appeared first on Barbados Today.
