Peter Earle's WorkPlace Conflicts Blog

  BICO Ltd., a name synonymous with frozen treats in Barbados, has experienced significant challenges over the years. These include a devastating factory fire, the impact of globalization, and rising operational costs. However, industrial unrest, particularly between employees and management, has become a recurring issue that threatens both employee satisfaction and the company's continuity. Historical Context and Recurring Issues BICO's employees have been grappling with wage stagnation and inadequate working conditions for years. The most recent strike, led by the Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU), highlights deep-rooted dissatisfaction. Since 2017, wage negotiations have been deadlocked, with employees experiencing no wage increases since 2015. Additionally, deteriorating health and safety standards—such as inadequate restroom facilities and lack of industrial cleaning—have further exacerbated employee grievances. The situation escalated when the Fair Trading Commission (FTC) bl...

  In recent years, the global debate over zero-hour contracts has grown louder, with many countries scrutinizing these controversial employment arrangements for their impact on workers' rights and job security. But what about Barbados? Are zero-hour contracts permissible here? Spoiler alert: No, they're not. Let’s dive into why, based on Barbados' Employment Rights Act, 2012-9 (ERA), zero-hour contracts are illegal and contradict essential employment protections. What Exactly Is a Zero-Hour Contract? A zero-hour contract is an employment agreement where the employer does not guarantee any specific number of working hours. Instead, employees remain on standby and are called to work only when needed. While proponents argue that these contracts provide flexibility for both employers and workers, critics emphasize that they often leave employees in precarious positions with no job security, uncertain income, and limited rights. The Treatment of Zero-Hour Contracts in Ireland ...

In a landmark decision on August 12, 2024, the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) ruled against Alexa Hoffmann, a transgender activist who claimed unfair dismissal and gender discrimination by Court Caribbean Law Practice. Hoffmann's case was dismissed because, among other things, they were never presented to the ERT.   For the first time, the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) addressed an allegation of unfair termination based on gender identity. The case involved Alexa Hoffmann, a transgender activist, and her former employer, Court Caribbean Law Practice. Hoffmann claimed she was unfairly dismissed after changing her name to reflect her gender identity. The employer, however, maintained throughout the case, that there was no law or legal obligation for him to refer to Hoffmann as female, despite her name change from Mr. to Ms. The dispute began when Hoffmann, who claimed she was hired as a legal assistant in August 2015—a point contested by her employer—legally changed her nam...

Introduction Understanding the complexities of unfair dismissal claims is crucial in employment. The case of Stephen Mullen offers an insightful look into the application of legal principles, such as those outlined in section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996. This article explores the details of Mullen's case, highlighting the allegations, investigations, findings, and judicial decisions, while referencing specific legislation. Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that: "The determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer) — (a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and (b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case." In other words, Sect...

  Background Claimant: Ms. K Hargreaves   Respondents : Ian Ambrose & Others   Hearing Location: Manchester (via cloud video platform)   Presiding Judge : Employment Judge Sharkett   Representation: Claimant: Representing herself Respondent (Mr. K Swindlehurst, R5): Represented by Mr. K Swindlehurst himself Date of Hearing : 30th August 2023 Preliminary Hearing Judgment The tribunal made the following determinations: 1. It is just and equitable to extend the time for the claimant to bring her claim against Mr. K Swindlehurst (R5). 2. The application by Mr. K Swindlehurst (R5) to have the claim against him struck out on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success is refused. 3. The claimant’s claims of age and sex discrimination against all respondents are dismissed upon her withdrawal. 4. All remaining claims will proceed in accordance with the case management orders already in force. Reasons for the Judgment ...

  A recent employment tribunal in the UK has ruled that repeatedly misnaming an employee can be considered racial harassment. This case involves Viveak Taneja, a British Indian bathroom salesman, who was awarded £9,329.23 for injury to feelings due to race harassment by his sales director, Dana Davies. Case Overview Viveak Taneja was employed as an area sales manager for Phoenix Whirlpools in London starting in June 2021. In March 2022, Dana Davies was hired as the sales director. The two scheduled time together on March 21 and 22, 2022, for Davies to assess Taneja's capabilities and identify any necessary support. Taneja was to pick up Davies from King’s Cross at 8:45 am on March 21. However, Taneja arrived late due to having to do the school run, arriving around 9:05 am. This initial meeting set a negative tone for their interaction, with Davies becoming irritated by Taneja's lateness. During the car journey, Davies misnamed Taneja twice, calling him "Vikesh." Tanej...

  My research informs me that in Hong Kong, the termination of employment has long been governed by principles that emphasize the employer's right to end the employment relationship by providing notice or payment in lieu thereof, without the obligation to provide a reason. This legal framework, deeply rooted in statutes like Hong Kong's Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), sharply contrasts with jurisdictions such as Barbados and the United Kingdom, where robust statutory protections against unfair dismissal are codified in laws like the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Rights Act 2012-09, respectively. Historically, Hong Kong's approach to employment termination has emphasized flexibility for employers, enabling efficient workforce management. In contrast to the UK and Barbados, where stringent criteria govern fair dismissal, Hong Kong law imposes minimal constraints on an employer's termination decisions, requiring adherence only to contractual and statutory o...