The 1981 JBC Dismissal
- tcollins66
- Apr 14
- 6 min read
Updated: Jul 18
A Turning Point in Media and Labour Rights
On February 11, 1981, a pivotal event unfolded at the Jamaica Broadcasting Corporation (JBC) when management issued redundancy letters to 13 members of its newsroom staff. This sudden action marked the second occasion in JBC's history where the newsroom became the focus of public attention, rather than merely reporting the news. In a turn of events perceived as provocative, the corporation simultaneously advertised these same positions, setting a deadline for applications just six days later, on February 17.
The Context of Dismissals
The dismissal of the journalists sparked considerable controversy, with numerous allegations suggesting retaliatory motives behind the decision. Critics claimed that these actions were related to the employees' professional affiliations and coverage choices. This incident led to widespread condemnation from various sectors of society, emphasising the broader implications for labour rights and media independence. The dismissed journalists, represented by the National Workers Union (NWU), sought to challenge their termination through legal channels. They were supported by attorneys Carl Rattray Q.C. and P.J. Patterson, who worked diligently to contest the claims of wrongful dismissal brought by the corporation.
Meanwhile, JBC retained the legal services of Emile George Q.C. and Dennis Goffe from the firm Myers, Fletcher and Gordon. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favour of the journalists, declaring the dismissals wrongful. The case concluded with a substantial settlement totalling J$515,519 to be divided among 11 journalists, with individual payouts ranging from J$40,000 to J$65,000. This settlement marked a significant milestone, becoming the largest financial resolution awarded in a local industrial dispute at the time.
Aftermath and Repercussions
The implications of the strike extended throughout the JBC and the broader media landscape. The dismissed journalists, including Michael Ruddock, Monica Hawthorne-Campbell, Collington 'Collin' Campbell, Hopeton Dunn and Beverley Newell, represented the entirety of the newsroom staff at that time. Their narratives began to unfold beyond the financial compensation they received, as the strike led to changes in newsroom dynamics and operations.
For instance, Errol Lee, who was on study leave and technically not part of the terminated group, faced challenges upon his return to JBC. Although he held the title of editor, he found himself reassigned to a different role, which was met with discomfort and ultimately led him to renegotiate his contract based on his seniority and prior experience. The strike's ramifications became evident when JBC management reportedly realised they lacked sufficient personnel to deliver news. Within 48 hours, the corporation recalled Judith Brown and Hortense Rose to assist as freelance editors in addressing the staffing shortfall. This situation illustrates the vital role that experienced journalists play within media organisations. However, the arrangement meant that these freelancers could not access the settlement benefits awarded to their dismissed colleagues.
Conclusion
The 1981 JBC strike was not merely a battle for job security; it represented a significant moment that shaped labour relations and media operations in Jamaica. The incident brought to light crucial issues surrounding press freedom, workplace equality, and the need for impartiality in journalism. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing importance of protecting workers' rights within media organisations to maintain the integrity and credibility of journalism. For a more detailed account of the 1981 JBC strike and its broader implications, readers are encouraged to explore Alma Mock Yen's book, Rewind: My Collection of Radio and Broadcasting in Jamaica.
Sources
Mock Yen, Alma. Rewind: My Collection of Radio and Broadcasting in Jamaica. Arawak Publications, 2003.
Errol Lee - JBC employee 1981
The National Worker Union et al. v. Jamaica Broadcasting Corporation
In 1981, two workers' unions represented employees from the Jamaica Broadcasting Corporation (JBC). They went to court because some employees in the newsroom were dismissed (let go) from their jobs. “The respondents who were employees of the appellant were dismissed along with other workers on February 11, 1981. Their letter of dismissal purported to dismiss them on the grounds of redundancy. These employees were employed in the newsroom of the J.B.C., which included radio and television."
The unions claimed that these dismissals were not genuine layoffs but were being falsely labelled as such (like claiming redundancy).
What Did the Unions Want?
The unions asked the court for two main things:
1. A Declaration: They wanted the court to confirm that the issue of the dismissals should go to arbitration, which is a way of resolving disputes outside of court, based on a special collective labour agreement (CLA) that the unions had with JBC.
2. An Injunction: They wanted the court to stop JBC from hiring new people for the jobs of the dismissed employees until the issue was settled through arbitration.
The respondents also claimed an injunction restraining the appellant from appointing persons to fill the vacancies in the newsroom department of the Corporation before the issue of the dismissal of the employees in that department had been determined on arbitration as provided for in the said collective labour agreement. The learned Chief Justice, on an ex parte summons, granted an interim injunction which was extended from time to time and which was in existence on the date of the hearing from which this appeal lies. An application was successfully made to amend the originating summons claiming an additional relief. This relief was as follows:
“Further and/or in the alternative, the plaintiffs claim a declaration that the employment of the employees of the newsroom department (i) is still subsisting and (ii) has not been effectively terminated since the redundancy claimed by the JBC does not in fact exist and is 'a mere colourable device by the defendant to deprive the workers of their rights under the Collective Labour Agreement, Industrial Relations practices, the Laws and the Constitution of Jamaica'.”
This application to amend was granted a hearing before the Chief Justice proceeded on the amended summons. At the end of the hearing, the learned Chief Justice granted the injunction which was sought. In view of the findings of the Chief Justice, this appeal is only concerned with the alternative relief claimed in the amended summons.
What Was the Court's Decision?
“The Court has also been asked to collective to say whether labour agreements are legally binding and we will endeavour to do so in due course.”
1. Collective Labour Agreement: The court found that the collective labour agreement was generally enforceable, meaning it had real legal power. However, the court stated that the unions could not force the reinstatement of the employees just because they were asking for it.
2. Injunction Granted: The court decided to issue an injunction, which means JBC was not allowed to fill the vacant jobs immediately. This was to keep things as they were until the arbitration could determine if the dismissals were right or wrong. The court suspected that the dismissals might not be legitimate.
Key Points to Understand
Collective Agreements: These are contracts between employers and unions that set out the rights and responsibilities of both sides regarding workers' jobs and conditions.
Injunctions: These are court orders that prevent someone from doing something. In this case, the court was preventing the broadcasting corporation from hiring new employees until the issue was resolved.
Workers' Rights: The case highlights the importance of protecting employees. If they believe they were wrongly dismissed, they have a right to challenge that according to their agreements.
Why Is This Important?
This case shows how labour unions can stand up for workers' rights and how courts can help resolve employment disputes. It also highlights the legal idea that just because a company claims layoffs are due to 'redundancy,' it doesn’t always mean they are justified. The court's role is to ensure fairness and protect worker rights as outlined in collective agreements. In summary, the court supported the unions' fight to protect their members but made it clear that just asking for reinstatement isn't an automatic guarantee. The unions needed to prove their case further through arbitration.
The outcome of the case, The National Worker Union et al. v. Jamaica Broadcasting Corporation, was a mixed ruling:
Enforceability of the Collective Labour Agreements: The court confirmed that the collective labour agreements were, at least initially, enforceable. This meant that the unions had the right to seek arbitration regarding the dismissals of the employees.
Injunction Granted: The court granted the unions an injunction, preventing the Jamaica Broadcasting Corporation from hiring new employees to fill the vacancies in the newsroom while the case was being resolved. This was to maintain the status quo and ensure the employees' claims could be properly addressed.
No Automatic Reinstatement: Although the unions could move forward with arbitration to challenge the dismissals, the court made it clear that the declarations they sought could not directly lead to the reinstatement of the employees. The court indicated that simply going to arbitration did not guarantee that the dismissed employees would be brought back to their jobs.
For the appellant, it was submitted that even if it was found that the respondents were wrongfully dismissed, the only remedy open to them was one of damages. Overall, the unions were allowed to pursue arbitration regarding the dismissals, but there was no immediate guarantee of reinstatement for the employees involved. The court sought to balance the rights of the workers with the authority of the employer while ensuring due process through arbitration.
