Tag Archives: Employment Law Cayman
Since the 1980s employers in the Cayman Islands have understood that they might face repercussions for unfairly dismissing an employee, but as a result of a recent charge brought before the Summary Court of the Cayman Islands, employers now face the prospect of being prosecuted for discriminating against their employees or potential employees. HSM Partner Alastair David delves into this topic.
It is understood that the recent charge filed in the Summary Court is pursuant to, a little used section in the Labour Act (2021 Revision), that is Section 80 of the Labour Act (2022 Revision), which states:
(1) No person (whether an employer or an employee) shall discriminate with respect to any person’s hire, promotion, dismissal, tenure, wages, hours or other conditions of employment, by reason of race, colour, creed, sex, pregnancy or any reason connected with pregnancy, age, mental or physical disability (provided their ability to perform the job is not impaired), political belief or the exercise of any rights under this or any other Law.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as prohibiting the taking of any personnel action genuinely related to an employee’s ability to discharge the duties of the employment in question.
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1), commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars and to imprisonment for twelve months.
While Section 80 of the Act has been in existence, in a similar form, since at least 1987, it is not known whether or not this section has ever been relied upon by the Department of Labour and Pension (“DLP”) or the Director of Public Prosecution (“DPP”) to bring a prosecution. Certainly, in recent memory, it is not believed to have ever been relied upon.
What is unusual about Section 80 of the Act is that a criminal sanction applies to what is normally a civil matter, i.e. dealt with in a Employment / Labour Tribunal. While it is the case that individuals can bring a claim in the Gender Equality Tribunal, who are claiming that they have been discriminated on the basis of their sex, gender, marital status or pregnancy, those people who believe that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their:
- Race,
- Colour,
- Creed,
- Political belief,
- Age or
- Physical or mental disability
Have in the past felt that they had no recourse in Law. It now appears that the DLP, with the support of the DPP, will certainly entertain a potential prosecution if the facts support one.
What is also interesting, and potentially concerning for employers is that Section 80 (1) of the Act does not appear to be limited to direct discrimination, i.e. an employer not employing an individual because they are a women, but also other types of discrimination. As Section 80 (1) uses the wording “any reason connected with …” it is possible to interpret the Act to include other forms of discrimination, i.e. indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from a disability, etc. If that is the case, then employers in the Cayman Islands should be extra careful in dealing with individuals with protected characteristics to avoid ending up before the Summary Court of the Cayman Islands.
Section 80 (2) of the Act does provide some comfort for employers, in that they can successfully defend a prosecution if can show that their actions were genuinely related to the ability of the person to carry out the role. Whilst that may offer some crumb of comfort to the employers, it is suggested that all decisions employers make are thoroughly documented, so as to show a proper paper trial in regard to their actions.
What is also currently not clear is how the burden and standard of proof apply with respect to the Defence as set out in Section 80 (2) of the Act. Employment practitioners from the UK will be familiar with the reversable burden of proof in the Equality Act 2010, which when a Claimant has established facts which could amount to a contravention of the Act, the employer will have to explain the alleged treatment and show that there was no discrimination. However, that reversible burden is set out in the Act itself and it is suspected that the Defence as contained in Section 80 (2) of the Act will be more akin to self defence, i.e. when the Defence raise the issue, it will be for the Prosecution to disprove the defence.
It will be interesting to see if further prosecutions are instigated by the DLP and their outcome. In the meantime Employers should be aware of the risk of prosecution.
HSM’s Employment and Immigration lawyers are advising a number of persons and businesses as to the requirements and expectations of the Cayman Islands Law during COVID-19, in particular where businesses may be required to make staff redundant.
Redundancy is defined in Cayman Islands Law as “a situation in which, by virtue of a lack of customers or of orders, retrenchment, the installation of labour-saving machinery an employer’s going out of business, force majeure or any other reason, tasks which a person was last employed to perform no longer exist.”
Cayman Islands Labour Law
A redundancy is a form of “fair dismissal” provided it is carried out in accordance with the Labour Law. The Law provides for preference in employment. If a group of persons carrying out a specific role within an organization are to be made redundant, the Law requires that preference be given according to immigration status. It follows that work permit holders are expected to be made redundant before permanent residents, permanent residents are expected to be made redundant before the spouse of a Caymanian holding a Residency and Employment Rights Certificate, and Caymanians are expected, by Law, to be the last to face redundancy. This is entirely academic if a business is closing down. All persons (without regard to immigration status) will likely be made redundant together. That is perfectly lawful.
Given that a redundancy constitutes a form of termination, it triggers a series of entitlements.
These include severance pay, notice pay, and accrued (but untaken) vacation pay.
Severance Pay is calculated as being one week’s pay, at the latest “basic wage”, for each completed year of service. “Basic wage” means the ordinary wage due to an employee under his or her contract of employment. It does not include such matters as future anticipated gratuities and commissions. Accordingly, for many, the basic wage will be CI$6.00 (or such other higher number set out in their contract of employment. Where no formal contract exists, the amount can be determined by reference to the conduct of the employer and employee – i.e. what is the basic wage that has in fact been paid.
Notice pay is determined by reference to the contract of employment. Where no notice period is prescribed it is deemed to be the interval between pay days.
Accordingly (by way of example) an employee who is made redundant on 31 March and who:
- has been employed by that employer for 3 years and 2 months
- earns CI$6.00 per hour at basic wage for a 40 hour week (CI$12,480 per annum); and
- has a 10 day annual vacation entitlement and has taken none this year;
would generally expect to be entitled to payment on redundancy of:
- 3 weeks severance of CI$720
- One month’s notice pay of CI$1,040 (assuming the employee is not asked to work during their notice period); and
- 2.5 days accrued but untaken vacation pay of CI$120.
A person in this situation would accordingly expect payment on redundancy of CI$1,880. Such payment is payable immediately on termination.
National Pensions Law
There is generally no entitlement to access pension monies prior to retirement. However, severance payments made on redundancy are not pensionable, but accrued untaken vacation pay, and any payment due in lieu of notice, are considered to be pensionable under the National Pensions Law. Also it should be noted that any additional voluntary contributions made by the employee can be withdrawn due to unemployment.
Health Insurance Law
All residents in the Cayman Islands are required to have “adequate” health insurance. As a general rule the obligation to ensure that health insurance is in place rests with employers. Upon termination of employment employers are generally required to ensure that health insurance is maintained for 3 months following the termination of employment. Employers are however entitled to charge those premiums to the employee. The employer’s obligation to maintain health insurance ends upon the person becoming employed elsewhere, being covered by an alternative qualifying policy of insurance, upon the expiry of 3 months, or upon the person leaving the Cayman Islands (whichever happens first). It follows that it may be of direct economic benefit for persons who held work permits, but who have been made redundant (or otherwise terminated), to leave the Islands as soon as practicable.
Immigration Law
Regulation 9 of the Immigration Regulations provides that where a person on a work permit is no longer employed, any work permit ceases to be valid, and the employer must forthwith notify the Department of Workforce Opportunities & Residency Cayman. Redundant employees who were on a work permit to be in Cayman have no right to remain once their employment ends. In normal circumstances that means that persons are expected to register as tourists and remain in accordance with permissions extended by WORC/Customs and Border Control. Customs and Border Control have announced that where a permission to work in Cayman ends before 22 March persons can simply proceed to leave before the anticipated 22 March, 2020 closure, without first having to “regularize” their permission to be in the Islands.
As matters stand, no expatriate can work in the Cayman Islands without express permission or exemption from requirements. It will not be impossible for an expatriate made redundant to seek and obtain alternative employment without first having to leave, and if normal rules continue to apply, Caymanians, Spouses of Caymanians and Permanent Residents will be given preference for any opportunity.
Rent
The obligation to pay rent will be based on the terms of any applicable lease. In normal circumstances appropriate notice will need to be given, and deposits may be forfeited if notice is not given or there is damage to the rented unit. Some leases may provide for the lease to end upon the termination of a work permit.
Repatriation
Unless provided for by contract, there is no obligation on an employer to ensure that an expatriate employee is able to return to their home country. It is worthy to note that employers have paid substantial “repatriation fees” to the Cayman Islands Government in the expectation that those funds could be applied towards the costs associated with workers getting to their homeland. For some, returning home is not a reasonable possibility. It requires closed third party borders to be crossed, even if flights are available. They may be stuck in Cayman, perhaps for an extended period. The Government has recognized this and it, employers, and the community will have to come together (maintaining social distancing) to ensure that everyone’s basic needs can be met.
We are ultimately, all in this together.
This article is intended only to provide a summary of the subject matter. It does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. No person should act in reliance on any statement contained in this article without first obtaining specific professional advice. Alternative solutions also exist which may better suit the requirements of a particular individual or entity.
Key Contacts
Alastair David
Senior Associate
adavid@hsmoffice.com
Hilary Brooks
Senior Associate
hbrooks@hsmoffice.com
Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function twentythirteen_paging_nav() in /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/wp-content/themes/hsm/tag.php:33 Stack trace: #0 /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/wp-includes/template-loader.php(78): include() #1 /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/clients/d...') #2 /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/index.php(17): require('/home/clients/d...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/clients/d17af2243e6f179e393695ba6e9ce04e/hsmnew/wp-content/themes/hsm/tag.php on line 33