The recent industrial action by medical doctors and threats of stiles form other sectors following the 30% increase in fuel prices bring to question the relevance of the Nation Labour Commission and by extension the Labour Courts in adjudicating industrial disputes. The National Labour Commission was established under the Labour Act 2003, Act 651 to among others investigate labour-related complaints, in particular unfair labour practices and take steps to prevent labour disputes.
Despite the authority and powers conferred on it, the commission has been severely constrained. Most of the time it was unable to enforce its rulings giving employers the avenue to challenge its decisions in the traditional courts. Many of have been overturned in favour of the employer. It was to address these unfortunate situations that government in September last year set aside a division of the National Labour commission. Before the coming into force of the Labour Act, the industrial Relations Act 299 of 1965 and the Labour decree of 1967 were the laws governing industrial relations in the country aside other laws scattered in the statutes books.
The judiciary plays a key role in the implementation of labour laws. It is perhaps in this director that the selling up of a specialised court to deal with labour disputes was widely acclaimed. However critics say the courts have not been helpful either. It has been disappointing as it relied heavily on the common law in determining cases of unfair termination of appointment.
Consequently, its rulings have always endorsed termination of appointment of workers even in the face of evidence of abuse of workers rights in campaign Labour Courts in other jurisdictions do not share the same characteristics. In a number of countries, they are not part of the normal judiciary set up. In all cases the assume their responsibilities independently of other governmental bodies.
Easy and speedy access and the absence of formality in the administration of procedures are also common features of these bodies. Easy and speedy access and the absence of formality in the administration of procedures are also common features of these bodies. Whatever it is, the general impression is that workers are not getting a fair deal in the adjudication of industrial disputes. Others are also given special treatment in the application of the labour law.
Otherwise why would the Ghana Medical Association unilaterally declare strike actions without any punitive action being taken against it. Under the rule of law nobody is above the law. We must do well to build the capacity of adjudicating bodies to competently and expeditiously resolve industrial disputes. A peaceful industrial environment promotes investments, growth and national cohesion.
The ILO could be relied upon to organize training programmes for judgers and other officers of the National Labour Commission and the staff of the Labour Courts. The recent statement by a judge that employers can terminate the appointment of a worker without assigning reasons shows the orientation of our judges in worker – employer relations. It is a serious indictment on our justice system. Technicalities which some of these judges would want to extent to the labour courts will not help the cause of workers.
Organised labour deserves tones of commendation for its ability to sustain the peace on the labour front despite the constant and glaring infringement on worker’s rights. Labour is an indispensable element in national growth. We must therefore nurture and motivate over workers to give of their best.
We must resolve to develop and sustain a peaceful and harmonious industrial relations environment through the use of effective dispute resolution practice, promote cooperation among the labour market players and mutual respect for their rights and responsibilities.
