There is growing concern among workers regarding reported demands by employers that workers must have mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations to continue in work or to be employed at all.
Workers are asking: Can my employer fire me if I don’t get vaccinated? Or Can an employer require that I be vaccinated before I am hired?
At this moment, the short answer is NO.
There is no legal requirement for compulsory vaccination in Trinidad and Tobago.
For such compulsory vaccination to be required, it may be imposed by way of legislation passed by Parliament. Another way may be by way of Regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act or Public Health requirement.
Any of these routes requires policy decision by Government.
As for employers, such a requirement cannot be unilaterally imposed without consultation with the employees and more so where there is a Recognized Majority Union there must be negotiation and agreement as to this new term of employment.
As for an employer making vaccination a condition for new employment, such a condition must be required by law or shall be established condition of employment in the practice of employment in this country.
Failure to employ is one of the elements of a Trade Dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act and refusal to employ anyone for this reason may by challenged with the assistance of a trade union in the Industrial Court.
So, whether it is for dismissal or refusal to employ the demand of an employer for compulsory vaccination is challengeable in the absence of a legal requirement for same.
For those who suggest that any requirement for mandatory vaccination may be a Health and Safety Issue and not an issue of terms and conditions of employment, and a part of the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace including a safe system of work, again in the absence of a legal requirement, the employer’s action can be challenged.
There is currently no provision in the OSH Act or the Regulations for such mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.
This is a new situation in our arena of employment relations. It is a new situation faced by the entire country and the world.
As such, this situation demands open urgent social dialogue and tripartite discussion involving government, employers and labour, to determine an appropriate policy for the workplace. .
Leadership in initiating such discussion should have come from Government which has principal responsibility for the public health of the population and for maintaining a stable employment relations climate to facilitate the economic welfare of the society.
This issue is much larger than any individual or collective contract negotiation involving a single or multiple workers and their and employers. This is not a simple matter of traditional collective bargaining.
This is a matter which should not be left to whether an affected worker engages the disputes procedure and proceeds to the Industrial Court on a Trade Dispute or a matter under the OSH Act.
This is a situation clamouring for urgent social dialogue and national setting of appropriate policy direction to avoid unnecessary conflicts and fights distracting from the National Purpose of defeating the COVID threat and protecting lives and livelihoods.
This crisis demands leadership at all levels.
The potential for a slew of industrial relations conflicts can be avoided and Government should take the leadership and convene social dialogue, not merely consultation, to arrive at a must win solution in the interest of all.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Calling for Social
Dialogue to serve the National Purpose.
06 June 2021
 

The Executive Director (ED) of WASA has written to the President of the PSA threatening to “the termination of your (the President’s) employment” with WASA.
The ED complains of:
1. “ the untenable nature of the indefinite time-off for Union’s business”
2. “Your continued employment with the ...PSA... is not in the best interest of the Authority”
3. “your current portfolio as Minority Leader of the... THA... is a conflict of interest based on the Civil Service Act ... section (10) (1)”.
I have just a discussion on radio about this letter and threat that was full of incorrect information based largely on the misinformation contained the ED’s threatening letter.
1. WASA is not part of the Civil Service and the Civil Service Act has no relevance to WASA.
WASA is a statutory organization governed by the WASA Act.
WASA’s employees are not appointed by ANY Service Commission and do not hold any public office. Not even the ED is a Civil Servant or Public Officer.
WASA monthly paid employees are pensionable under the Pension Extension Act, not the Civil Service Act.
WASA is the employer within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act Ch 88:01 ( not the CPO) and the PSA is a recognized majority union (RMU) for the bargaining unit of monthly paid employees of WASA.
2. The terms and conditions of employment of those employees are contained in a Collective Agreement agreed through collective bargaining between the employer (WASA) and the union (PSA).
The WASA-PSA Collective Agreement provides for No-pay leave for any PSA member who is elected to the national executive of the PSA.
Article 37 of the Collective Agreement which states at 2 (a):
 “An employee (of WASA) who is certified by the Association as an elected member of the executive of the Association SHALL on making an application BE GRANTED leave of absence WITHOUT PAY for the PERIOD OF TERM OF OFFICE”.
The only time limit on such leave in the Agreement is “for the PERIOD OF TERM OF OFFICE”. THERE IS NO INDEFINITE TIME-OFF FOR UNION’S BUSINESS’ as the ED says in his letter.
An employee shall be granted such leave once elected to the PSA executive.
The last PSA executive elections were in December 2020 and the leave for the President was last granted by WASA; the same month that the ED was appointed Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of WASA.
IF WASA granted leave required by the Agreement 6 months ago, the ED needs to explain how and why is the President being full time with the PSA suddenly ‘not in the best interest of the Authority’?
The President is not the only WASA employee to have had such leave to serve on the PSA executive over its history.
If WASA is not happy with the provision for leave to serve on the PSA executive for its employees, it must engage in Collective Bargaining with the RMU, the PSA, to change the terms of the Agreement. WASA cannot UNILATERALLY change ANYTHING in that Agreement without negotiation and agreement with the PSA.
When the Chairman was also appointed as ED, the Minister of Public Utilities (himself an Attorney at Law) made heavy noise about the ED’s qualifications and experience as a management consultant and public and private sector change management expert.
Surely, such an expert will know the difference between the Civil Service and WASA and the legal position of an RMU and Collective Agreement.
The Minister, having been a Head, Legal Services in a Ministry of the Civil Service up to the time he became a candidate and got elected as an MP and appointed a Minister.
Even if some of the callers and hosts discussing the ED’s threatening letter are not aware or confuse the provisions of the Civil Service Act and Regulations or other Agreements on the Port etc with what the WASA Agreement provides, the very experienced and qualified cannot claim to be unaware.
As a Secretary/ Treasurer then President of the PSA and an employee of the Agricultural Development Bank, with similar provisions in the ADB Collective Agreement was in such no-pay leave for the 7 years I served on the PSA Executive.
When I returned to the ADB, the bank refused to give no-pay leave to go to Law School the next year and forced me to resign my job. The HR Manager said I was out with the union for 7 years and the Bank couldn’t guarantee me a job as an Attorney at Law.
My immediate successor Ms. Baptiste-Primus was a Civil Servant and was similarly on no-pay leave from the Civil Service for over 20 years as a member of the PSA Executive in various posts.
The threats by the ED to terminate the employment of the PSA President is a most flagrant attempt at anti-union assault and a dangerous violation of industrial relations law and practice and trade union and Constitutional rights.

Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for the
Rights of All
 
20 April 2021