- NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 04/Sep 09:29

No rights for protesting workers

From 1960-1964, there were at least 230 strikes involving 75,000 workers. The majority of these discontented workers were seeking higher wages and better working conditions. They endured economic oppression and injustices. Prime Minister Dr Eric Williams responded to the disturbances of the 1960s with uncompromising and calculated repression. The weapon was legislative, through instruments such as the Industrial Stabilisation Act (ISA) enacted on 18 March 1965. This act cancelled the right of unions to take strike action. The prime minister was accused, by trade unionists, of being dictatorial and that the ISA returned labour to the bygone colonial era when the administration ignored the exploitation of workers and condemned the right of unions to take strike action. As was expected, labour leaders protested government’s violation of this right, but Williams was on the warpath against the labour movement. The ISA crippled the unions and Williams threw caution to the wind and aggressively undermined the labour movement. He rode a dangerous trail. The power of unions to represent the working class was now placed in the hands of an Industrial Court. The OWTU’s newspaper – The Vanguard – condemned the ISA for conducting a “bloodless takeover.” Unfortunately, for the working-class, sit-downs, go-slows and strikes were now criminal activities. The OWTU constantly challenged the ISA. The Appeal Court headed by Chief Justice Hugh Wooding, determined that although unions had "freedom" to strike, they did not possess the "right" to strike. The union further appealed to the Privy Council but even there, they lost the case. The ISA was upheld. It prohibited strikes in the public service, prison, Prison and Fire services and the Defence Force. Also included were the essential services – electricity, health and water. The new Industrial Court was convened in 1965. Lennox Pierre, in 1965, writing in We The People, argued, “…the government for their own lunatic reasons wanted among other things to stop strikes and interfere in free collective bargaining, so they passed the Industrial Stabilisation Act.” He further noted that two British lawyers (Queen’s Counsel), contended that the ISA was "constitutionally invalid" and should be "set aside." One of the first unions accused of violating the ISA was the Transport Industrial Workers Union which was fined $3,000. The issue, in 1967, involved the union’s involvement in a work stoppage of a company that produced paint. The magistrate felt the union was responsible but the union claimed the workers independently took their action. In November 1967, the US Embassy in Port of Spain sent a dispatch to the US Department of State commenting on the impact of the decision by the TT government. “The unions involved have been the leftist-led unions – the TIWU and the Hotel Workers Union, with full support from the Oilfield Workers Trade Union. It is obvious that the unions were pushing the GOTT (government of TT) to see just how far they could go before legal action was taken against them under the penalty provisions of the ISA. Now they know.” In January 1969, in a secret telegram, the American ambassador noted the implications of the legislation stating, “There have been no strikes or lock-outs of any significance since the enactment of the Industrial Stabilization Act of 1965…While the new system has eliminated work stoppages due to strikes and lock-outs, it has greatly weakened collective bargaining...and labour’s more militant wing would like to see the Act repealed altogether.” The divided opposition party in Parliament contributed to the survival of the ISA. The Democratic Labour Party suspended two of its members for supporting the Government on the oppressive anti-worker legislation. In February 1970, the first in a series of meetings of a tripartite conference was held. The focus was the ISA. The American Embassy noted the dissatisfaction of George Weekes who described the conference as a "sell-out" by the Trades Union Congress because they, “…begun by demanding outright appeal of the ISA, but then proceeded to negotiate amendments to it.” Weekes not only represented the oil workers but was one of the prominent working class voices. Trade unionists continued their relentless attack on the ISA. There was limited victory in 1972 when it was replaced by the Industrial Relations Act. This made cosmetic changes but returned to the unions a limited right to strike possibly where negotiations have broken down. It also emphasised governmental intervention and arbitration of the Industrial Court. Today, 60 years after the passage of the ISA, there are contract workers who face similar injustice and exploitation. Yes, the absence of legislation protecting these workers creates an anti-worker climate similar to 1965. The post No rights for protesting workers appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.