Peter Earle's WorkPlace Conflicts Blog

 

 

 

The Employment (Prevention of Discrimination) Act, proclaimed in December 2020, prohibits discrimination in hiring and employment based on fifteen (15) categories, including medical conditions, physical characteristics, age, gender, sexual orientation, and family responsibilities. Under the Act, medical conditions encompass various factors such as loss of bodily or mental functions, presence of disease-causing organisms, disorders affecting learning or behavior, and more. Employers are generally prohibited from asking questions or conducting tests related to a person's medical condition as a precondition for employment or continued employment. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Section 8(2) allows employers to require questions or tests related to a medical condition if it is necessary to determine if the person meets a genuine occupational qualification. This means that employers can consider a medical condition as a valid factor when making hiring and retention decisions...

  Embracing AI in Human Resources: Exploring the Positives and Negatives Globally Introduction: In today's rapidly evolving world, the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become increasingly prevalent across various industries. One area where AI has gained significant traction is in the field of Human Resources (HR). As organizations seek to optimize their operations and enhance efficiency, AI presents both opportunities and challenges for HR professionals globally. In this article, we will delve into the positives and negatives of AI in HR, shedding light on its transformative potential and the considerations that come with its implementation. The Positives of AI in HR: 1. Streamlined Recruitment Process: AI-powered tools and algorithms can revolutionize the recruitment process, enabling HR teams to sift through vast pools of candidates efficiently. Automated resume screening and applicant tracking systems help identify the most qualified individuals, saving val...

  Following a significant ruling by the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) in Barbados, specifically the case of Pauline Wood vs JADA Builders Inc (ERT/2016/172), we would like to extend an invitation to individuals who have been unfairly retired by their employers. We believe there is potential for these individuals to receive additional compensation. It is important to note that affected individuals must take action within three months of their termination to file a complaint of unfair dismissal with the Labour Department. If you or someone you know meets the criteria mentioned above and is interested in seeking fair treatment and additional compensation, we urge you to seize this opportunity without delay. Together with Caswell Franklyn from the Unity Workers Union and Peter Earle of Earle and Earle Associates are ready to provide expert advice and support, bolstering your case and ensuring you receive the necessary assistance. Remember, your retirement may have marked the end of ...

 Grievance Handling in the Public Sector Questions and Answers Based on Public Service Act Cap 29 Section 12 of the Public Service Act, Cap. 29: 1. According to Section 12(1) of the Public Service Act, who can an officer or employee invoke the grievance-handling procedure against? Please list the three categories mentioned. Answer: An officer or employee can invoke the grievance-handling procedure against: • A person appointed by the Commission who has or had supervisory powers over that person. • A person other than the one appointed by the Commission, but who has supervisory powers over the employment of that person. • A fellow employee. 2. What is the procedure that an aggrieved officer or employee can invoke, as specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Public Service Act? Answer: The procedure that an aggrieved officer or employee can invoke, as specified in the Fourth Schedule, involves: • Seeking to resolve the grievance within 3 days after reporting it, involving ...

 This case involves a dispute between Pauline Wood, the claimant, and Jada Builders Inc., the respondent, which was brought before the Employment Rights Tribunal in Barbados. The claimant, an 83-year-old maid who had worked for the respondent for 18 years, alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent argued that the claimant had reached the company's retirement age of 66 and was retired due to a slowdown in projects. The tribunal examined the issues of whether the claimant was entitled to protection under the Employment Rights Act and whether her termination with one day's notice was unfair. The tribunal found that the claimant, despite being past retirement age, was still protected under the act and that the reason given for her dismissal was not valid. It also determined that the procedural fairness leading to her termination was flawed. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's age, rather than a decline in business, was the real reason for her dismissal. The respondent...