What about Industrial Court’s accountability?

THE EDITOR: Recently, I read a pronouncement by Mr Addison Khan, President of the Industrial Court, and I could not agree with him more on the two issues he mentioned:

1) Failure to grant security of tenure for judges of the Industrial Court, and 2) The time has come when individuals should be granted free access to the Court instead of having to go through a trade union, said Mr Khan. At the same time there must be a system of assessing those judges who are not performing in accordance with the understanding of Industrial Relations practices, who assess issues as though they are in a magistrate’s court, persecuting employers while they are giving evidence as though they have misbehaved. The purpose of the Court is to assess whether the employer’s treatment to the matter was unreasonable. Is the time not right for amendments to the Industrial Relations Act, where trade unions which have no members — only a Bargaining Unit Certificate for life — make spurious impossible demands, in spite of the fact that employees of that company have requested the Court to ignore the demands as they are not members of that union? As a matter of fact, the trade union does not have one single member on its role. Is this democratic or undemocratic?

What about the rules and regulations of the Court or failure of the Court to adhere to previous decisions of the Court? What about accountability and performance? Ought there not to be fixed standards by which judges are assessed? Even the President commented on some of the unfortunate decisions going out from the Court. Ought there not to be a formula known to both parties when damages will be awarded and under what circumstances? What is meant when judgements describe employers’ action as harsh and oppressive contrary to the principles of good industrial relations? Should we not look at the issues in accordance with Section 17 and investigate all matters affecting such a dispute and deem whether the employer acted harshly? Unions that waste the Court’s time should be made to pay large sums of money because of the cost to the State and the employer on frivolous matters. I therefore advance that the time is more than right to amend the Industrial Relations Act in the interest of all concerned and to maintain the stability of the Court, and I surely agree that judges should be appointed outside the political patronage of any administration.

HENRY JAMES
Carenage