by Leela Ramdeen, Chair, CCSJ and Director, CREDI
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is playing its part in creating a regional jurisprudence. This article is the second in CCSJ’s series to educate the public about the links between judgments of the CCJ and Catholic Social Teaching (CST). In this article, I locate the CCJ’s judgment in the case of Mayan King Ltd v Jose Reyes [2012] CCJ 3 (AJ) within the context of CST. A summary of the Judgment is found at the end of this article.
This case from Belize is linked to the CST Principle of The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers. In this case, certain employees at Mayan King Ltd, employer/owner of citrus and banana farms, held/attended public meetings and promoted unionisation outside working hours at venues other than Mayan property. During their meetings the employees concerned also highlighted unfair practices at the Company. The “chief activists for the union” were sacked.
The CCJ found that the sacked employees had been discriminated against by the Company because of the employees’ involvement in trade union activities. This was in direct violation of a law (Trade Union and Employers Act 2000) “which was designed to protect employees from being discriminated against by their employers for involvement in trade union activities”.
The Church has always spoken out on human rights issues. In Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 Encyclical, Rerum Novarum – On the Conditions of Labour, the Holy Father, inter alia, supported the rights of labour to form unions and outlined some of the rights and duties of both workers and employers.
See also: Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno (The Fortieth Year, 1931), Blessed John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher, 1961), and Blessed John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus (The Hundredth Year, 1991).
The US Bishops remind us that “work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected – the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organisation and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.”
For further reading on the Church’s position on Labour unions, please access information from The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004) via Google. See the chapters on, “Principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine” (pp. 71-94), “Human Work,” “Economic Life,” and “Political Life” (pp. 115-182).
In his article “Labour Unions and the Church”, Joseph J Fahey reminds us that “the Church teaches that free association is rooted in the natural law that cannot be abridged or denied by civil law.” He outlines several principles arising out of the Compendium’s treatment of Catholic teaching on labour unions. Here are a few:
“Unions are indispensable for the universal common good…Unions are rooted in the right of free association… Unions protect the right to fair wages and benefits…Unions foster solidarity through participation and subsidiarity… Unions must seek cooperative relations with employers.” The Compendium teaches that “relations within the world of work must be marked by cooperation; hatred and attempts to eliminate the other are completely unacceptable” (#306).
He refers to the US Bishops 1986 pastoral letter Economic Justice for All in which the bishops gave their full support to “the right of workers to form unions” and stated, “We vehemently oppose violations of the freedom to associate, for they are an intolerable attack on social solidarity” (104)…The purpose of unions is not simply to defend the existing wages and prerogatives of the fraction of workers who belong to them, but also to enable workers to make positive and creative contributions to the firm, the community, and the larger society in an organised and cooperative way” (304).
Pope Benedict XVI addressed workers’ rights in his first Sunday blessing on May 1, 2005. On several occasions Pope Francis has spoken out on the rights of workers, e.g. see his Catechesis on the Feast of St Joseph the Worker (May 1, 2013). Inter alia, he spoke about societies that put company profits above human dignity or even human life. See also his Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), in which he reiterates Pope Leo’s concern that workers must not be left “isolated and defenceless” in the face of “the callousness of employers…”; and his meeting in November 2013 with Guy Ryder, the Director General of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), at which he expressed his concern for the welfare of workers.
If we are to combat what Pope Francis calls “the globalisation of indifference”, we must stand up for the dignity and rights of workers, who, like us, are made in God’s image and likeness.
For further information about the CCJ, visit the Court’s website or the Court at any time between the hours of 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at its headquarters – 134 Henry Street, Port of Spain.
The Court Judgment
A summary of the CCJ Judgment in the case of Mayan King Ltd v Jose Reyes [2012] CCJ 3 (AJ) by Christina Wallace-Whitfield, Eugene Dupuch Law School.
During June 2001 several farm workers (the “employees”) were all fired from Mayan King Ltd. (“Mayan”), the owner of citrus and banana farms. One of the issues for the Caribbean Court of Justice to decide was. in a word, ‘Why’. Were they fired due to their involvement in trade union activity, as suggested by the former employees, or was it due to legitimate cost-cutting exercises, as suggested by Mayan?
In May 2001 the employees began actively promoting unionisation in their workplace. They highlighted unfair practices, held public meetings, encouraged employees to join the union and personally signed them up. Their promotion of the union was not done during working hours and their meetings were not held on Mayan’s property. By June 2001 they were all dismissed from Mayan. They were all long standing employees, ranging from six to 16 years with Mayan. They took legal action challenging their dismissal. They claimed that the only logical explanation for their dismissal was their involvement with the union. They stated that their dismissals violated the Trade Union and Employers Act 2000 (Belize) which was designed to protect employees from being discriminated against by their employers for involvement in trade union activities. If an employee could show that his/her dismissal was based on such involvement the courts could direct that the employer do what is right or direct that the employee be rehired, if possible.
The CCJ ruled in favour of the employees. They rejected Mayan’s excuse that the dismissals were part of a cost-cutting laying-off exercise. The Court noted that the dismissed workers were “chief activists for the union” at Mayan’s farms; they were dismissed a few days after the company had received a letter indicating that 85% of the workforce had joined the union and no evidence was presented to show why they and not more recently hired employees were being dismissed. The CCJ stated that the employees “were encouraged to embark on their Union activities by their genuine belief that the very [law] that was violated by the company would protect them.” Mayan was accordingly ordered by the court to pay compensation to each of the former employees.
This summary is intended to assist the Caribbean public in learning more about the work of the CCJ. It is not a formal document of the Court. The judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document and may be found at http://www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012-CCJ-3-AJ.pdf
