EDITORIAL

International labour law jurisprudence does not exactly repudiate it, but it does not wholeheartedly endorse it either. We refer to the relation between workers’ organisations and political parties. The Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the International labour Organisation (ILO) has stated the following: “In the interests of the of the normal development of the trade union movement, it would be desirable to have regard to the principles enunciated in the resolution on the independence of the trade union movement adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 35th Session (1972) that the fundamental and permanent mission of the trade union movement is the economic and social advancement of the workers, and that when trade unions, in accordance with the national law and practice of their respective countries and at the decision of their members, decide to establish relations with a political party or to undertake constitutional political action as a means towards the advancement of their economic and social objectives, such political relations should not be of such a nature as to compromise the continuance of the trade union movement or its social or economic functions, irrespective of political changes in the country.”

At the same time, “Provisions imposing a general prohibition on political activities by trade unions for the promotion of their specific objectives are contrary to the principles of freedom of association…”

The issue at caption has come into sharp focus with the selection of Ms Toni Moore, the current general secretary of the island’s most representative workers’ organisation, to be the candidate for the Barbados Labour Party [BLP] in the upcoming by-election in the constituency of St. George North.

Of course, the distinction can and must be drawn between the political leanings of the union’s leadership and those of the union itself but, given the local predilection with the cult of personality, this is a distinction that might not be too readily drawn.

To some extent, the political history of the region, including Barbados, has been frequently instanced with open alliances between organised labour and the political party. Indeed, while this is not as financially beneficial to regional political parties as the alliance in the UK between the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress, it has served to maintain the associated party as a significant and viable political force, even when in opposition.

As the ILO, Barbados has always treated the relation as one for the sole determination of the respective parties themselves, while nevertheless ensuring that the voice of labour resonates in Parliament by the provision in section 36 (4) that “seven senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General acting in his discretion to represent religious, economic or social interests or such other interests as the Governor-General considers ought to be represented”. By time-honoured convention, the leadership of the island’s most representative workers’ organisation has been perennially nominated to represent the economic interest of labour.

It may be argued therefore that despite the historical reality, the drafters of our supreme law never contemplated partisan political representation by the labour leadership, although, to be fair, there is no express legislative provision that seeks to bar such leaders from membership of the Lower House either.

In this light, the nexus between the union and the party and its degree are matters for the members of the union as is their electoral choice of representative in general or other election.

After all, the individual member is not bound by his or her contract of membership or otherwise, to engage in a game of follow-the-leader when exercising their democratic franchise, nor does the electoral endorsement of the organisation itself necessarily accompany the partisan choice of its leadership.