Peter Earle's WorkPlace Conflicts Blog

  Sending you heartfelt holiday wishes and gratitude for your support throughout the year.

Basseterre, St. Kitts (PMO) – The dismissal of Lenworth Harris as the General Manager of the St. Kitts and Nevis Development Bank continues to spark national debate, now heightened by Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Terrance Drew's call for the upcoming court case to be televised. Scheduled for January 29, 2025, the trial will delve into allegations of financial mismanagement and misuse of public funds during Harris’s tenure. “This trial must be televised. Transparency is vital to democracy, and the people deserve to know what occurred with their money,” Prime Minister Drew stated emphatically during the wrap-up of the 2025 Appropriation Bill debate. Circumstances Leading to the Dismissal On January 26, 2013, reports surfaced that Harris had been escorted from his office by police and a senior government official. Harris dismissed the rumors, asserting that “people don’t fire people who are doing a good job.” However, the timing raised eyebrows, as it followed the removal of his brother, T...

  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 ...