The newly-appointed Prime Minister declared at a function that he will personally see how to bring about necessary amendments to the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) in 2004. The IRA, debated and approved in Parliament in 1973, has undergone slight amendments on a continual basis. Trade unions have viewed the legislation mainly as a deterrent to industrial action and it has been linked with the perception of repression, uplifting of the individual?s liberty and the threat of imprisonment for any form of deviation from such legislation.

If the perception of opposition parties during the 1970s was at odd ends with that of the government, it implied that IRA could be an attempt to counter ongoing pressure from trade unions which could benefit from such a difficult industrial climate. Certain issues within the IRA could relate the legislation to a ?loi baîllon?, the rule-of-the-thumb in the years following the state of urgency. When the regime was discharged from power in 1982, the population wanted to feel assured that new changes to the IRA could offer more opportunities for individual and civil liberties.

The IRA remained practically the same when the new government stepped to power while the Public Order Act (POA), a complementary legislation was reviewed and renamed the Public Gathering Act (PGA). Several issues within both legislations were frequently discussed but few remained solved. For example, the forty-hour week looks more like a compromise than a solved problem while inequalities concerning sex differences and jobs have been approached with some nuance without correcting anomalies that still persist.

From this point, it would be good to ponder whether new amendments to the IRA will offer wider avenues for industrial democracy to employees or whether there would be merely cosmetic changes. Trade unions will surely not appreciate the style, ?Plus ça change?? or associate the new developments with an existing cliché like the legislation is good ?dans la forme mais pas dans le fond.?

The critical issue behind expecting a more subtle form of legislation is that trade unions and employees are willing to have wider industrial democracy at the place of work. Industrial democracy is not the most ideal form or employee participation but it is one of those concepts that can help Mauritius gain more credibility as a free state that offers room for human development. It still looks strange that Mauritius has maintained a consistent position at the level of human development in the sub-Saharan region according to a UN rating yet its workplace legislation has not made important leaps forward.

Ideally Mauritius should expect more flexible and improved industrial relations compared with the actual legislation that offers limited possibilities for employee freedom. For example, the right to strike action is prohibited as government views this to be counter-effective to the country?s advancement. The fact that the country is an export-oriented economy makes it a reasonable argument to withhold industrial strike. Most governments seem to be careful on this issue as they may not want to see the country in a chaotic situation where law and order are threatened.

If strike action is still feared, IRA must make more provision for go-slows. In the actual context, employees can risk the threat of being laid off for some valid reason and also subject to legal action following a go-slow. Apparently, go-slows should not be treated to a similar level as strikes. Industrial democracy pictures go-slows as measures to create disobedience in a civilly acceptable way. Civil disobedience undertaken in a peaceful way with strong justification for such an action should be accepted as normal and reasonable.

Dynamics of the modern western workforce

Apart from the United Kingdom, most nations in the European Union tolerate strikes and go-slows. If was not unusual to hear in the past years the chain of strike action that affected France and spread deeper into Europe. The first assessment was that these countries would have economics that would be shaken by strike action and that annual growth would be very poor. In fact, such condition rarely persists for a long time. Rather, occasional industry turmoil helps the western economies to readjust to changes.

If this perspective were translated to an open marked economy like Mauritius, it would be fair to say that industrial democracy would become more evident in the country. The argument here is not to appraise industrial strike or go-slow as a much-deserved right but to state that these factors comprise the dynamics of a developing economy. Haven?t we heard of ?stagflation? that occurs among economies that are too stagnant and are chronically affected by inflation? The main cause is that such economies fail to recognise the importance of workforce dynamics and the essence of industrial democracy.

Insights of industrial democracy

Apart from more flexibility expected from go-slows and strike action, industrial democracy must give more opportunity for employee participation in negotiation. The actual position of the private sector favours a more paternalistic management style than encouraging employee democracy. Recent moves of the private sector were aimed at replacing the actual tripartite with a new form of ?controlled? collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining as translated to the Mauritian reality looks to be more distant and weaker as a negotiation approach than tripartite during compensation and salary revisions. Government may need to consolidate the right for employee participation in tripartites and allow trade unions negotiate freely without overemphasising the threat of job loss which is caused by an adverse economic environment.

A lot has been said on the participation of women at the workplace. If gender representation is fair at executive positions in the government, little can be said of progress achieved in the private sector. At this stage, there are reasons to argue in favour of more female participation at upper levels in private organisations. In order to see this as a possibility, trade unions should firstly provide chances for female representation in collective bargaining where women can also voice their opinion on key issues affecting them. Actually, most of the debate concerning female emancipation is centred at Ministry?s level but too sparsely among trade unions.

The forty-hour week should be more thoroughly debated as it constitutes the flagship of industrial democracy. The reduction of working hours and a better ?équilibrage? of a three-tier day offer more motivation to the workforce. Japan is now lowering to less than forty hours believing that Japanese need to work and rest, and not be called ?workaholics? In France, the ?semaine de trente-cinq heures? helps saving jobs in industry. In Mauritius, the five-day week in several sectors has helped reducing absenteeism on Mondays considered as ?lundi cordonnier? in a recent past. It is important to rethink of the forty-four week in several sectors, more importantly, in occupations requiring enduring physical effort.

The arguments discussed in this article should not be considered as prescriptions to better industrial harmony. They are just an evaluation of the variety of issues that a revamped IRA, enforceable as from next year, should essentially cover. In a world characterised by the need for more individual freedom, the consolidation of civil liberties and the creation of wealth, more equitably spread so as to reduce the poverty gap, it would be rewarding to see how far such debatable and thought provoking issues so fundamental to workers need to contained within the IRA. There is the expectation that the Mauritian workforce does not want to be deceived but considers such a long awaited change as an opportunity to align Mauritius with Industrial democracy and progress so endearing to a limited number of successful western economies.

N. K. BETCHOO