Essay

Topic: Critically explain and discuss the meaning of international labour law and explore through a rights-based approach the extent of individual rights employment law legislation in CARICOM states.

1|P ag e

What is labour law? Before understanding international labour law one must first understand what is labour Law. Simply put by Eaton (2005: p. 109) Labour Law is that part of law that deals with individuals and legal persons in their capacity as employees and employers, i.e. concerned with work and the relationship arising from it.” Clive Pegus on the other hand described it as consisting of “principles, rules and norms that regulate employment relations”, which is “primarily concerned with the rights of workers, trade union and employers, standards applicable to employment relations and the regulation of industrial relations and the labour market”. He also cited Deakin and Morris who argue that “a broader perspective would see labour law as the normative framework for the existence and operation of all the institutions of the labour market: the business enterprise, trade unions, employers’ associations and, in its capacity as regulator and as employer, the state. The starting point for analysis is the existence of the employment relationship as a distinct economic and legal category.” Using Deakin and Morris’s definition, Dunlop’s Systems Theory comes alive as labour law can be seen as the “rules” that govern behaviour (normative framework) within the Industrial Relations system, which is dictated by “context”- economic, social and otherwise; “ideology” – political; and power. Rosemarie Antoine’s argument supports the latter as she believes the ideological construct law which is evident in labour law reflects society’s core beliefs of social organization and equity. They also described the “Actors” in the employment relationship (employees’ representatives - trade unions, employers and their representative) and they also acknowledged the state. Over the years however, Pegus noted that “labour law has developed as a result of the struggle of workers for fundamental human rights, social justice and democracy to achieve a more balanced or less inequitable relationship between relationship between workers and employers. Its focus has been on workers’ rights”. Therefore, in recognition of Trade Union pluralism (as a result of inadequate human rights) particularly in the Caribbean, the state intervened and introduced laws to govern the behaviour of trade unions, collective bargaining and industrial action – strikes and lockouts. Based on ILO standards the state also enacted labour legislation to deal with the social rights of workers. According to Deakin and Wilkinson “Social rights should be understood as institutionalised forms of capabilities which provide individuals with the means to realize the potential of their resource endowments and thereby achieve a higher level of economic functioning” (p 347). In short, “social rights are crucial for both economic efficiency and social justice.”(p. 248). Therefore using arguments put forward by both Pegus and Deakin and Wilkinson labour law encompasses collective as well as individual “rights” which regulates power in the employment relationship. Eaton (2000:p. 108-109) also supports this position as he contended that “labour law is conventionally divided into two parts: individual and collective”. International Labour Law, International Human Rights Law or Both? With the proliferation of globalisation however, labour law cannot only be taken from a national context. Globalisation stresses the need for countries to be competitive; technologically
2|P ag e

advanced; it promotes labour market flexibility and capital direct foreign investments through multinational companies, which also introduces a new type of employment - atypical employment. More than that, it facilitates the free movement of labour, thus the concept labour law has to be expanded outside national borders and embrace international order hence its relevance. Pegus supports the notion of international labour law as he states that “labour law is being developed not as a direct result of the internal dynamics of industrial relations environment, but because of new labour standards developed by international processes and agencies”, in response to globalisation. Pegus went further to explain that, labour law now includes aspects of other branches of law, including criminal law, human rights law, social security law, company law, tax law, immigration law, children/family law, intellectual property law, tort, environmental law and more recently international trade law and international economic law. Valticos and von Potobsky (1995) therefore, describe international labour law as that type of labour law that has an international source. It covers the substantive rules of law which have been established at the international level, as well as the procedural rules relating to their adoption and their implementation. In contrast, Lee Swepston saw international labour law as being “very much a part of international human rights law”, which is based on ILO standards that have been adopted by the ILO over the years. Both have its merit because labour law from an international source inevitable covers fundamental human rights as seen in the 1944 Declaration of Philadelphia. Patrick Macklem also commented on international labour law, as seeking “to promote the exercise of sovereign power in ways that foster just relationships between employers and employees. It requires states to enable employees, individually and collectively, to negotiate freely the terms and conditions of employment, and to guarantee basic set of entitlements to employees….” A major criticism of Macklem’s position on international labour law is that these laws do not have legal binding power on countries therefore it cannot guarantee anything. International instruments such as the ILO conventions and recommendations outline the requirements for international labour law. While Swepston cited in James Gross linked international law as being part of international human rights law other writers such as Macklem sees economic globalisation and transnational flexible production as changing the normative relationship between international labour law and international human rights law. In fact, Macklem went a step further to explain that the two fields share similar heritage but rarely explore the extent to which they share similar values and aspirations and this inevitably rises the issue of ‘rights’.

3|P ag e

The Rights-Based Approach When one examines labour and international labour law the issue of rights always come to the fore. Pegus believes that the development of labour law in the ‘Caribbean has been influenced by international human rights concepts’. Hepple (2005:p.263-265) stated that “claims against employers have often been asserted as ‘rights’ to decent conditions of work, fair pay and job security, and the right to participate in trade unions and to engage in collective bargaining. Rights have been seen as a means of redressing the inequality in bargaining power between employer and worker.” However, he made a distinction saying that in recent times, rights has become the individualisation of these claims or one sided. Antoine also supports this notion as she too noted that “there is a rise of individualism in the employment relationship at this time.” All in all using the Interest theory, the function of rights in this case is really to further the interest of employees in the form of decent working conditions. Hepple (2005:p.67) also claimed that “a rights-based approach is necessary and appropriate to the implementation of ‘core’ standards, and that core should be regarded as progressive not static, taking in a wider range of fundamental human rights.” The core in this context refers to the conventions found in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work adopted at the International Labour Conference in June 1998. The document has gain consensus with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WHO), the ILO, and mostly recently the United Nations in the form of a global compact forged with labour, business and non-government organizations according to Roy Adams. The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Right at Work, adopted by the International Labour Conference (ILC) in June 1998 promote and realize in good faith the principles concerning: · · · · The rights of freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining The elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; The effective abolition of child labour; and The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

It must be noted though that the Declaration mentioned above are all ‘Human Rights’ enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 as well as International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are all recognised as international legal instruments. Alston noted that in this context labour rights can be seen as a subset of Universal Human Rights. This declaration is also very relevant especially in the light of globalisation as this phenomenon has caused Government and enterprises to focus mainly on remaining competitive and promoting economic growth by

4|P ag e

increasing labour market flexibility at the expense of workers which consequently makes regularization of these rights necessary. Hepple (2005:p.263-265) articulated that “rights-based regulation sees employment rights as beneficial and necessary to economic development” in that “….under-valued labour leads to productive inefficiency, hampers innovation and leads to short-term strategies and destructive competition”. Therefore he sees the only form of correction as being in the form of regulation of individual rights such as minimum wage and equal pay. He also believes that “rights-based regulation rests on the redistributive purposes of labour law” as it “tends to favour the transfer of resources to enable those who wish to enter the labour market to do so, for example by providing better education, training and child care.” Additionally he noted that rights-base advocates argue that “labour market institutions which encourage high trust or co-o-operative workplace ‘partnership’ lead to superior economic performance.” Therefore the use of a rights based approach to international labour law really means the marriage of labour and aspects of human rights which allows for economic development but at the same time allows for entitlements consistent with ethical and universal human rights imperatives to ensure workers active rights. The question is though, whether or not the notion of rights treat the individual and the collective as equals?

Is Individual Rights Employment Law Legislation necessary? Eaton (2000: p.110) noted that “individual employment law regulates the individual employment relationship as it arises from the contract of employment.” Individual labour law here refers to unfair dismissal, discipline, wages, etc. Therefore, I believe that individual rights employment law legislation is imperative especially in light of globalisation, which stresses the need to be and remain competitive; the trend towards smaller service delivery companies or SMEs as they are usually called; and worldwide declining union density and the simultaneous rise in individualism, which will inevitably reduce employees power in the workplace and advance employers’ unilateral position in the workplace. This is also consistent with Hepple’s account of the same. According to Kahn-Freund et al 1983 quoted in Dickens (2002:624) “the individual employee’s position is one of subordination, though asymmetry in power is clothed “by that indispensable figment of the legal mind known as the contract of employment”. Thus, by creating individual rights employment law legislation the state empowers individuals who are not normally protected by a union or covered by a collective agreement. Dickens (2002:622) noted that the UK Government “in an important recognition of the diverse (and at times disguised) nature of subordinate labour, and the changing nature of the labour market, the Employment Act 1999 made provision for bringing workers who may not be classified as “employees” within the scope of employment protection”. In addition, these laws provide a floor of rights or minimum
5|P ag e

levels of protection that will guarantee some level of protection, which can be further improved through the collective bargaining process – negotiations. For example, the Holidays with pay Act in Barbados guarantees that all employees who work for twelve consecutive months be entitled to holidays with pay. Individual rights employment law also seek to protect vulnerable groups such as women, young persons, migrant workers and those employed with multinational companies. According to Dickens (2002:624-625), “more recent legislative change have been presented as part of achieving “a high skill, high productivity economy achieved through high performance workplaces, where employers and employees work together in partnership” (DTI, 2001)”. She went to argue that the legislative changes is an attempt to balance the ideal of social justice, with the need to curb employers abusive power on one hand and provide minimum standards on the other hand without jeopardizing entrepreneurship, growth and competitiveness. This argument has been opposed as employers who see individual rights regulation as inflexible and as a cost that adversely affect their economic performance. But although I support the promotion of individual rights law, the question is can this be to the detriment of trade union power and influence as a collective body? Trade unions are also very relevant today as they continue to protect the social economy of its workers as well as their job interest, they represent workers’ interest on the national level and act as a form of ‘check and balance’ in terms of ensuring compliance to labour policy. Additionally, Dickens (2002:633) pointed out, that unions “can play an important role in practice, not only in helping members bring individual cases, but also in ensuring that employers know what legislation they are expected to comply with. Unions are an instrument in translating statute and case law into changed employment practice and, where they are recognized, can build upon basic legal standards via collective bargaining”. They also assists in the day to day running of the work place and settlement of disputes as Dickens (2002:632) noted “an obvious inference is that workplace employee representation arrangements encourage internal solutions to individual employment disputes which can be can be supported by further analysis presented by (Burgess et al., 2001, Knight and Latrielle, 2000, p.546)”. Therefore by no means should one replace the other but Governments through their policies must encourage the healthy survival of Trade Unions and their collective power as well as the protection of individuals as employees.

The extent of individual rights employment law legislation in CARICOM states

There is to large extent individual rights employment law legislation in CARICOM states.

6|P ag e

CARICOM The Caribbean Community consists of fifteen (15) states with a combined population of approximately six million. Integration efforts among the Caribbean states can be traced back to the British West Indies Federation in 1958, which came to an end in 1962. This was then followed by the establishment of CARIFTA in 1968 which was supposed to create a free trade area in the Caribbean but paradigms shifted a few years later when countries decided that a Common Market was needed in addition to the Caribbean Community, thus CARICOM came into existence officially in August 1973. CARICOM’s main objectives are as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) improved standards of living and work; full employment of labour and other factors of production; accelerated, co-ordinated and sustained economic development and convergence; expansion of trade and economic relations with third States; enhanced levels of international competitiveness; organisation for increased production and productivity; the achievement of a greater measure of economic leverage and effectiveness of Member States in dealing with third States, groups of States and entities of any description; (h) enhanced co-ordination of Member States’ foreign and [foreign] economic policies; and (i) enhanced functional co-operation, including – a. more efficient operation of common services and activities for the benefit of its peoples; b. accelerated promotion of greater understanding among its peoples and the advancement of their social, cultural and technological development; c. intensified activities in areas such as health, education, transportation, telecommunications

CARICOM’s Stance on Labour According to Goolsarran (2006:p.6) the standing Committee of Ministers responsible for Labour adopted the following model of labour laws in 1995 and 1997 in an attempt to harmonize essential labour standards, they are as follows: · · Termination of employment – which provides for protection of employment through contracts, redundancy, and severance pay; Equality of opportunity and non-discrimination in employment – providing for protection against unlawful discrimination, and employment discrimination. It also provides for an equal remuneration for wok of equal value; Registration, status and recognition of trade unions and employers’ organizations which provides for compulsory recognition and exclusive bargaining rights to majority unions, certified by an independent tripartite body; and

·

7|P ag e

·

Occupational safety and health at the workplace and the environment – providing for the registration and regulation of industrial establishments, and for occupational safety and health of persons at work, (Goolsarran 2006:p.6).

He went on to note that the model laws gave effect to several ILO Conventions and other international instruments such as the UN Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. Other CARICOM policies on labour include the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas Establishing the Caribbean Community, 2001; Charter of Civil Society, 1997; and its Declaration of Labour and Industrial Relations Principles, 1998. The latter according to Goolsarran (2006:p.7-8), “outlines the general labour and industrial relations policies to which the CARICOM states aspire. The Declaration is informed by the ILO labour standards (Conventions and Recommendations) and reinforces the standards relating to: consultation and tripartism, freedom of association, collective bargaining, non-discrimination in employment and occupation, employment policy, labour administration, and industrial dispute settlement.” The ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental principles and Rights at work adopted in 1998 also played an important role in shaping CARICOM’s labour policy. Labour Legislation in the Caribbean Goolsarran (2005) noted that by the early eighteenth century Britain had emerged as the colonial power in the Caribbean as they had brought slave and indentured labour to it. Industrial relations existed even during those times and continued into the twentieth century with the same characteristics such as the pauperization of the planter class via grave exploitation, control of capital and economic power backed by the political powers of the state, the latter never hesitated to exercise such power against workers. The British Caribbean also had a legacy of authoritarian rule consistent with their control over resources and desire for more wealth. That wealth of course was tied to Britain while workers throughout the British Caribbean worked in conditions of profound squalor. Unsavoury conditions of employment such as low wages, long working hours, unsanitary working conditions, increased unemployment and underemployment, lack of political and legal rights ignited riots and strikes throughout the British Caribbean in the 1930s. As a result of these activities, a commission was set up to examine the causes of the disturbances, which is popularly known as the Moyne Commission (1938-1939), and the recommendations therein were the impetus of change for industrial relations throughout the British Caribbean henceforth. A notable change was the legalising of Trade Unionism through legislation, thus giving trade unions power to represent workers as well as it was recommended that an Industrial Court be establish for the West Indies. Jamaica passed the first Trade Union Act in the Caribbean in 1919, followed by Guyana in 1921 and then by Trinidad and Tobago in 1933, the other territories got theirs subsequently.

8|P ag e

The new era of self-government / rule, after the Second World War, was meted with several unrests throughout the colonies; some more than others, in an attempt to salvage social stability and control in order to secure the socio-economic development of their respective states, new regulation was adopted. One of which was the establishment of Labour Departments as recommended by the Moyne Commission. In addition, there was also ratification of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions No. 87 and No. 98 on Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise (1948) and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining respectively. These conventions were also ratified by the UK. Subsequent to Independence, individual nations were left alone to govern their respective countries and by extension, to develop labour policies to dictate industrial relations. This inevitably saw the movement away from voluntarism in the British Caribbean as nations tried to secure foreign investment and industrial peace. Trinidad and Tobago was the first to enacted strong legislation as seen with the Industrial Stabilization Act (1965) which also gave birth to an Industrial Court, the first of its kind in the English-speaking Caribbean. This Act was eventually repealed; giving rise to the Industrial Relations Act (1972) that legalized interest dispute strikes, regulated the recognition of Trade Unions and placed an obligation on parties to bargain in good faith for the purpose of reaching a collective agreement. Antigua and Bermuda also established an Industrial Court, through the Industrial Court Act (1976) similar to the one in Trinidad and Tobago. The IRA in Trinidad also permits Agency Shop Orders but the right of freedom of association is explicit as under Section 71 states “membership in any trade union or any number of trade unions of his/her choice, not to be a trade union member…” Trinidad and Tobago also has other labour legislation that cover employees whether they are members of a trade union or not such as the Maternity Protection Act (1998), Occupational Safety and Health (Amendment) Act (2006) that gives employees the right to refuse to work under certain circumstances described under Section 15 of the named Act, Minimum Wages (Amendment) Act (2000), Retrenchment and Severance Benefits Act (1986), Workmen’s Compensation Act (1960) and the Equal Opportunity (Amendment) Act (2001) that addresses discrimination in employment with regards to sex and religion just to name a couple. Antigua and Barbuda though, have a Labour Code that covers: employment protection – wages, reasons for termination, contract of employment including breaks and working hours; discrimination; working conditions; right not to be unfairly dismissed; right to redundancy and severance pay; as well as it covers the tenets of collective bargaining. Jamaica enacted the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act (1975) which has in it a Labour Code and promotes free collective bargaining between employer and unions and guarantees recognition where the union is chosen by the majority of workers similar to the system in the UK. Jamaica also has the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payment) Act (1974) that requires employers to give employees a minimum period of notice before termination and guarantees the right to redundancy payments. Therefore there are ‘mixed’ laws in Jamaica those that cater to the collective as well as those that guarantee individual type protection.
9|P ag e

Barbados on the other hand maintained most of the voluntary system inherited by Britain as it relates to collective bargaining. In Barbados labour laws expresses limited rights to Trade Unions and the ‘collective’. The Trade Unions Act 1964 (major one) ensures the protection of its members. Although there is a labour department and laws governing its operations through the Labour Department Act 1943, it cannot demand employers to recognize trade unions if they choose not to. More than that, there is no law defining collective bargaining, collective agreements and bargaining units as well as contracts of employment are determined by the common law. There is also no legal position to determine a majority union in a case where there is more than one union seeking recognition and no legal position for good faith bargaining. In Barbados there is social rights legislation such as the Employment of Women (Maternity Protection) Act. Most recently however, is the Employment Rights Act (2012) (not yet proclaimed) which highlights an array of individual employee rights such as the minimum period of notice of termination; right to be provided with employment particulars; right to holidays and holiday pay; right not to be unfairly dismissed; right to severance payments; etc. which will be enforced through the establishment of an Employment Rights Tribunal that will allow persons to appear before it individually or by representation of his/her choice. Therefore in the case of Barbados there is stronger legislation to protect individual employees as opposed to the collective. The Employment Rights Act also stipulates that the employer, in the contract of employment, outline working hours and breaks. This is not new to the world as other countries such as France and Denmark have legislation detailing minimum work weeks, shift work, minimum rest and break periods as well as family leave such as adoption leave and paternity leave. The Employment Act (2001) in the Bahamas also has similar protection for employees and they have the Industrial Relations Act (1970) which guarantees the protection of freedom of association and secures recognition of trade unions to bargain collectively. Similar to Barbados (The Employment Rights Act), Grenada also has an Employment Act (1999) that covers individual rights employment law as it prohibits forced labour, discrimination and child labour. This Act also promotes equal pay for work of equal value and covers other areas such as employers’ duty to define contracts of employment, employers duty to justify dismissal, notice of termination, wages, vacation, maternity protection, etc. Grenada’s Labour Relations Act (1999), in addition to dealing with Trade Union / Employers’ Organizations registration assures the Freedom of Association and the right to organize as well as the duty of parties to negotiate in good faith. This is consistent with the ideals of Universal Human Rights instruments and the ILO’s 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work that guarantee these rights explicitly. Therefore Grenada’s legal framework, like Trinidad and Tobago, is a good example of the rights-base approach in action as these laws covers a wide range of both individual and collective rights. Other countries such as Guyana has similar legislation to Trinidad in terms of the effective regulation for recognition of unions and the obligation to bargain in good faith, which is enshrined in the Trade Union Recognition Act (1997). Guyana also has the Termination of
10 | P a g e

Employment and Severance Pay Act (1997) that protects employees’ rights not to be unfairly dismissed and the right to redundancy/severance payment. The Prevention of Discrimination Act (1997), which is the only one of its kind in the English-speaking Caribbean deals with rights to equal pay and freedom to associate and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (1997). The latter is not just limited to industrial establishments but includes self employed business and persons engaged in homework. Belize also guarantees freedom of association and recognition of the right to bargain collectively in their Trade Unions and Employer’s Organizations (Registration, Recognition, and Status) Act (2000). The Equal Pay Act (2003) prohibits discrimination with regards to remuneration. Both Belize and Guyana’s laws conform to the ILO’s 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Right at Work although in the case of the former, legislation was enforced prior to International Labour Conference in 1998. What’s unique about Belize though, is that they have an International Labour Convention Act (1999) which gives force of law to ILO Conventions ratified by them, on another point of information this Act supersedes the Labour Act when conflict arises. St Lucia has the Registration, Status and Recognition of Trade Unions and Employers’ Organizations Act (1999), which guarantees compulsory recognition and good faith bargaining. Its Labour Code (2006) explicitly covers the provisions enshrined in the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principle and Rights at Work, similar to the case of Grenada as well as other entitlements such as vacation and sick leave. Similar to Barbados, St Vincent and the Grenadines (in the Employment protection Act 2003) and St Kitts and Nevis (in The Protection of Employment Act 1986) as well as Montserrat (in the Employment Act (Revised) 2002) support the voluntary collective bargaining and dispute resolution before any intervention. There is also a strong emphasis on individual employee rights in their respective legislation similar to what was enshrined under the Employment Rights Act 2012 in Barbados. Dominica has ‘mixed’ legislation that deal with the individual as well as the collective as seen in the Employment Protection Act (1977) with similar provisions as mentioned above and Industrial Relations Act (1986) respectively. In Bermuda however, there is legislation similar to what have been discussed already such as the Employment Act (2000) except for the Human Rights Act (1981) which recognizes rights in its constitution as well as that enshrined in international instruments such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights and related ILO Conventions. Appendix I categorizes labour laws in the Caribbean. What was interesting though is that in every country studied, there was legislation concerning essential services which ranged from health care practitioners to postal services which prevents them from engaging in strike action which is technically an infringement on human rights since the right to strike is included in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
11 | P a g e

Further according to Goolsarran (2005:p.242-249) as at 30 November 2005, all thirteen (13) Caribbean member states, excluding Haiti and the Bahamas ratified the following ILO Conventions: · · · · · · · Forced Labour – Convention 29 – 1930 Freedom of Association and the Right to Organize – Convention 87 – 1948 Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining – Convention 98 – 1949 Abolition of Forced Labour – Convention 105 – 1957 The Worst Forms of Child Labour – Convention 182 – 1999 (except Suriname) Discrimination (Employment / Occupation – Convention 111 – 1958 (except Suriname) Equal Remuneration – Convention 1951 – 1951 (except Suriname)

Following ratification, most of these conventions were converted to law. The ILO conventions stated above also forms the human rights argument in international labour law hence the rightbased approach. Therefore it can be said that CARICOM states to a large extent, have individual rights employment law legislation and these rights provide that floor of rights which govern employment relationship as seen in the form of minimum wage, maternity protection, holidays with pay and so on.

Conclusion International labour law has evolved over time and is still evolving in light of globalisation. It has been expanded to embrace the ideals defined in international human rights instruments. The issue of human rights have impacted employment relations not only in the Caribbean but the entire world. The Caribbean’s legacy of slave and indentured labour also had an impact on labour law in CARICOM states. In fact it is not surprising that individual employment rights are becoming prevalent in the Caribbean because Trade Unionism in the Caribbean developed as a result of the lack thereof. It must be noted though that collective bargaining is now under threat as there are trends towards atypical employment and the development of small and medium service type enterprises. There are also trends towards individualism. Consequently the state has to play a greater role in the employment relationship through public policy in order to secure employees collective rights as the security of these rights cannot be left up to market forces. Using labour rights as human rights is an effective way of dealing with these rights and it will depend largely on the approach of the ILO to see how far the right-based agenda will go. The ILO also has to play a greater role in enforcing the floor of rights enshrined in its conventions and recommendations so that developing countries that adhere to these principles will not be at a disadvantaged position.

12 | P a g e

There were notable differences in the development of labour law among CARICOM states in that countries that promote voluntary collective bargaining for example, Barbados, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kitts and Nevis, etc. showed a tendency towards the development of individual rights employment law legislation as compared to the collective than those who have compulsory systems. But this was in the minority as most CARICOM members had laws covering both the individual and collective aspects of the employment relationship (see Appendix I). In short, using the rights-based approach to a large extent there are individual rights employment law legislation in CARICOM states.

13 | P a g e

References · · · · · Dickens, L., (2002). Individual Statutory Employment Rights Since 1997: Constrained Expansion, Employee Relations, Vol. 24 Issue: 6 pp. 619-637 Deakin, S, and Wilkinson, F., (2005). The Law of the Labour Market: Industrialisation, Employment and Legal Evolution, Oxford University Press, pp.380 Goolsarran, S, J., (2006). Caribbean Labour Relations Systems: An Overview, International Labour Office - Caribbean Deakin, S., and Morris, G., (2001). Labour Law, Butterworths, Third Edition Pegus, C., “Challenges to Labour Law in the Commonwealth Caribbean” in Industrial Relations in the Caribbean: Issues and Perspectives, International Labour Office, 2006, page 67-81 Antoine, R., “Labour Law and the Role of the State in Industrial Relations and Employment” in Industrial Relations in the Caribbean: Issues and Perspectives, International Labour Office, 2006, page 82-102 Goolsarran, S, J., “Linking Trade and Labour Standards in an Era of Free Trade” in Industrial Relations in the Caribbean: Issues and Perspectives, International Labour Office, 2006, page 403-415 Eaton, J., (2000). Comparative Employment Relations: A Introduction, Polity Press Alston, P., “Labour Rights as Human Rights: The Not So Happy State of the Art” in Labour Right as Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 1-24 Deakin, S., “Social Rights in a Globalized Economy” in Labour Right as Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 25-60 Macklem, P., “The Right to Bargain Collectively in International Law: Workers’ Right, Human Right, International Right?” in Labour Right as Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 61-84 Hepple, B., (2005). Labour Laws and Global Trade, Hart Publishing Gross, J, A., “A Long Overdue Beginning: The Promotion and Protection of Workers’ Rights as Human Rights” in Workers’ Rights as Human Rights, Cornell University Press, 2003, page 1-22 Compa, L., “Workers’ Freedom of Association in the United States: The Gap Between Ideals and Practice” in Workers’ Rights as Human Rights, Cornell University Press, 2003, page 23-52 Swepston, L., “Closing the Gap between International Labour Law and U.S. Labour Law” in Workers’ Rights as Human Rights, Cornell University Press, 2003, page 1-22 http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community/objectives.jsp?menu=community http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community/history.jsp?menu=community https://sites.google.com/a/workersunion.org.tt/national-workers-union/workersrights/employment-law

·

·

· · · ·

· ·

·

· · · ·

14 | P a g e

· ·

http://web.stlucia.gov.lc/docs/Policy%20Documents/St%20Lucia%20Labour%20Code% 20-%202006.pdf http://www.ilocarib.org.tt/projects/cariblex/browse_country_bahamas.shtml

15 | P a g e