Amendments to labour legislation: Please Mr. Minister, priorities first

The Labour Minister is in the process of consulting various parties with the intention of bringing amendments to the labour law. A few weeks ago I was approached by Saman Ratnapriya, consultant on trade union matters at the Presidential Secretariat, regarding this matter. Saman is a veteran trade unionist with whom I have worked, especially, in relation to dispute settlement in the public sector. I reminded him that although we have had many drafts, suggestions and dialogue on this matter,  nothing tangible materialised in the past. However, my concern now is that with the country in need of the utmost cooperation of all sectors the Minister has thought fit to bring this up and agitate the trade unions. It also makes the private sector fearful of repercussions.

Basically, the labour laws do not apply to the public sector except in relation to the Trade Unions Ordinance. The public sector trade unions were close to a thousand the last time I delved into the statistics, and both, in the public and private sectors, trade unions do not comply with the requirements of the law. Most do not hold proper annual elections nor do they file accounts.  Let us not talk about what the trade unions are doing in terms of their management except to say that in the public sector most disputes arise due to the lack of a proper system for the management of employees, or if they exist they have not been effective due to interference by politicians. 

Labour and Foreign Employment Minister Manusha Nanayakkara

I will not deal with the public sector as the immediate concern is that the timing is not right to create agitation and dissension in this sector. I am also conscious of the fact that it could well result in the public sector unions and the politically oriented private sector unions joining hands to fight the Government and thereby hurt the private sector. 

For decades employers have been seeking a change in the law, especially, in relation to the manner in which closures, retrenchments and dismissals are handled. However, the private sector has developed its ‘modus vivendi’ which in some instances should be frowned upon by trade unions, but they have come to terms with the reality. Companies engage labour contractors and although the contractors are bound by the labour laws there are many devices by which workers are kept in a state of uncertainty and in some instances denied their superannuation. There have been closures which could have been avoided had the laws been different. Nevertheless, employers are carrying on despite the stringent laws and there are hardly any major disputes in the private sector unlike in the public sector where the lack of a meritocracy and arbitrariness cause issues for employees and Unions. In the private sector for more than two decades now there has been an acceptance that if an employer has an effective and fair process for handling human resource issues there would be no pressure from the Unions.

By attempting to change the labour laws when the need of the hour is for companies to have the freedom to remain competitive and focus on labour productivity, the Government is unnecessarily opening the private sector to a new irritation, if nothing else. May I suggest that we let ‘sleeping dogs lie’ as the saying goes. What we could not achieve for the last 50 years, should be left alone.

When the J.R. Jayewardene regime introduced the market economy a white paper was prepared by N. Satyendra based on the Jayewardene Commission Report. At that time with the strongest ever market oriented Government it was not possible to bring about change. So let’s put on the back-burner any moves to tamper with the labour laws and promote more goodwill between the social partners. What the Government should do is prevent politicians from interfering in management issues such as forcing their influence in the matter of contracts to suppliers which for instance, led to an incident where an Omani Manager was assaulted. We cannot countenance thuggery which sullies the image of our businesses or prevents investors from looking favourably at us.