Othon Castillo and the other terminated open vote workers have a natural ally, the Former Labour Commissioner Ivan Williams.
If Williams hadn't stepped down to pursue his candidacy for the UDP in Stann Creek West, their complaints would have landed on his desk at the Labour Department. This afternoon, the defeated candidate he told us why he thinks that these 55 employees have a strong case that they need to press at the Labour Department. Here's how he explained why in an interview:
Ivan Williams, Former Labour Commissioner
"My understanding for these employees is that were not given notice. They were given a letter terminating their employment, no notice. So the first issue that arise is the issue of your right to notice and where notice is provided under section 38/2 payment of the equivalent of wages for the notice period. In this case if somebody is there more than 5 years they would require 8 weeks' pay to satisfy the breach of not giving notice and why do you then not prepare. I mean when I was there as the labour commissioner I would tell the employer but you know what you were going to do so you prepare. You should have had all of these people benefits already calculated, prepared and along with the letter. As a matter of fact with the government system it's even easier because government you register under the smart stream and your money can easily go into your account. Most people now don't go to collect money over the counter, you go straight into your account. People ought to have thought about this. Why do you have to wait. It is very disrespectful. It is mean. In my view it is cold and heartless to do that."
"My understanding is that it is going 2 months now. You could understand maybe a week or so because you don't have the calculations and you need to figure out this and that, but 2 months. No man, it is high time that we do something for these people and that's why I when I was invited I said look let me talk about it. Unless you could justify why you don't pay people right away then the labour department and this is why I am concern - the labour department and I am hoping that these people already lodge their complaint to the labour department, because the labour department should post-haste, make sure that people get at minimum their benefits that they are due. So something is wrong and procedures are not being followed as I know it. Now you also have a situation where other entitlements comes into play. Apart from the notice you have what you called annual vacations. Persons are entitle to their annual vacations and under the GWR which is different from the labour act, it is usually 14-16 days' vacation annually, because it is government workers regulation. So if there are people who are due outstanding vacation then that becomes a live issue too. They should calculate up to the date of the letter of termination your benefits in terms of your annual average vacation and then you have what you called severance pay/pension. I say severance pay because there are those who may not qualify for pension. And under the labour law it talks about being there for 5 years or more that you are entitled to at least a severance. And after 10 years the severance changes. In 2011 there was significant amendment to increase that severance after 10 years from one week pay for each year of service to 2 weeks post 2011, takes effect after 2011."
Williams tells us that based on the explanations provided by the new Minister of Transport, and what he knows about the case, he thinks that these men also have a case for wrongful termination.
