Proposed contract labour laws contrary to tripartite consensus reached at NLAC
View(s):Raising this issue, the Ceylon Federation of Labour (CFL) in a statement said that there is an urgency to frame legislation to prevent the exploitation of workers under contract/ sub-contract employment practices depriving them of their due rights and entitlement provided and recognized by local laws.
The CFL said that the proposed legislation placed before the NLAC for agreement falls short of these expectations. Instead, the October 2016 draft is much flawed, logically inconsistent and raises serious doubts about the intentions of the framers of the draft law.
It said that in 2009 – 2010, the need to achieve consensus and speedily resolve the matter compelled the unions to suggest that Section 59 of the Wages Board Ordinance “may be enlarged to meet the issues on Contract Labour”.
“However, what finally resulted was the complete deletion of Section 59A as it presently exists in the Wages Boards Ordinance and its replacement with LDO 55/2009-2010. This was akin to throwing the baby with the bath water,” the CFL noted.
A reformulation of Section 59A on the lines proposed by the Attorney General would have been welcomed to add strength to the section. “We agree with the view that the existing provisions in the Wages Boards Ordinance over-ride the contractual obligations made by the parties,” it added.
However the CFL pointed out that this ground was lost by the unions in their haste to obtain the acquiescence of the employers for the amendment. Though the CFL was a party to the final decision it has to be categorically stated that it was not an enthusiastic supporter of the move.
The 2009-2010 draft of the proposed amendment to Section 59A of the Wages Boards Ordinance presented to the NLAC provides a clear, concise and consistent definition of what a “disguised employment relationship” is; and the procedure of engagement in such circumstances.
“The said draft does not provide for the reinstatement of workers in a disguised employment referred to in the law. As such it requires further provisions to provide for the absorption of such workers by the principal employer as required by the legal benchmark set by local judicial precedents. An important suggestion made by the Attorney General to incorporate a prohibition clause on disguised employment relationships which have the effect of depriving such workers of their entitlements under the law has failed to receive the attention of the authorities,” it said.
It also fails to give cover to employees coming under the Shop & Office Employees Act.
The CFL said the October 2016 draft presented to the NLAC has no provision to prevent restrict, control, dissuade or discourage the operation of manpower agencies that “thrive on exploitation of labour for monetary gain”.
“The draft L.D.O. 55/2016 is contrary to the tripartite consensus reached by the NLAC raising serious doubts on the commitment of the government to honour and act in keeping with the spirit and principles of tripartism of the ILO. It abounds with logical inconsistencies and legal infirmities,” it said.