The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Government’s proposed Employment Act reforms create “minimum standards far in excess” of those enforced globally, the Bahamian hotel industry has warned, and would force resorts to pay staff for an extra 2.5 hours per week of unproductive time.

The hotel industry’s response to the proposed changes, which has been seen by Tribune Business, said the reform requiring that employees be paid for a daily mandatory lunch hour would cost resorts 30 minutes of work per worker, per day.

The Bahamas Hotel Association (BHA) and Bahamas Hotel Employers Association (BHEA), in their response, argued that the minimum 12 hour rest period between shifts was “unrealistic”, and should be reduced to eight hours, something also argued by the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation (BCCEC).

And the resort industry also expressed concern over the proposed overtime pay reforms, warning that these would require “payment of triple time” to hotel staff working on public holidays.

It also called for amendments to the proposal that would see hourly paid workers paid for time not worked on a public holiday.

The good news for the Bahamian hotel industry, and other employers, is that the Employment Act reforms do not appear to be a ‘frontburner’ agenda item for the Government, and are in no danger of being enacted soon.

Winston Rolle, the BCCEC”s chief executive, yesterday confirmed that while the private sector had sent in its collective submissions to the Government as requested, the follow-up meeting involving those two parties and the trade unions had yet to take place.

“My understanding was that there was no urgent intent to move ahead with it, and we’re satisfied with that at this time,” Mr Rolle said.

In their feedback on the proposed mandatory paid lunch hour, the BHA and BHEA said the industry’s standard practice was for a 30-minute lunch break, with many resorts also providing a meal at their expense for the worker.

Under the current industrial agreement between the BHEA and the hotel union, while employees are to be provided with a free meal, the lunch hour is not paid and not included in the standard hours of work.

The hotel industry warned that if the amendment passed as initially proposed, hotel workers would have to be compensated for an extra 2.5 work hours per week, bringing the total work week to 35 hours or seven hours per day.

“The Employer will lose 30 minutes of work from each employee. At the present time, all hotels, fast food operators and many tourism-related businesses provide at least two paid break periods for each shift, thus further reducing the productive hours,” the BHA and BHEA warned.

“The employer will also be required to increase the number of employees scheduled on shifts in such areas as Food and Beverage outlets, as schedules have included coverage taking into account an additional 30 minute meal interval.

“For example, the labour cost to a two-shift, five server restaurant outlet would increase by one server per shift, calculated at a daily rate of $34.80 per server x 365 days + 42 per cent benefits = $36,073 per annum. Specialized areas such as

“Casino operations maintain eight-hour shifts, which afford dealers one hour on the casino floor and 20-minute rest periods, one of those rest periods representing a 20-minute meal interval.”

The BHA/BHEA warned that the impact would go beyond large hotels, impacting smaller properties, marina and tour operators, restaurant and excursion providers.

“We object to this amendment on the grounds that it exceeds core reasonable minimum standards which employers are already obligated to provide. Furthermore, it establishes minimum standards far in excess of those which are provided by most of the other international community,” the BHA/BHEA warned.

“On these grounds, coupled with the difficult economic conditions which continue to plague many businesses, it is unreasonable and may not be feasible for employers to incur such additional labour-related costs without creating negative consequences for businesses, particularly small businesses, and adversely affecting the very employees it is intended to protect.”

As for the minimum 12-hour rest period between shifts, the hotel sector warned it was “unrealistic” in the context of 24-hour hotel operations. Scheduling flexibility was required.

The BHA/BHEA said: “To move to a 12 hour rest period will require additional shifts, which is cost prohibitive to an employer.

“A Food and Beverage Room Service operation, which utilizes three shifts per day, would be required to employ three additional employees at $34.80 per server x 365 days + 42 per cent benefits = $54,103.95 per annum.

“Secondly, to mandate a rest period of more than eight hours to employees who maximise their revenue during peak occupancy periods will lead to the employee’s pay being reduced and gratuities being affected as the pool of employees increases.”