Chances are you have seen the media report on strikes by the stevedores, the sugar cane farmers, and trade unions in Belize. Industrial action is a tool available to workers to demonstrate their discontent and agitate for a desired change. Indeed, our status as an independent state has its roots in popular labour movements against unsatisfactory working conditions. But, before May 2023, it was unclear whether or not striking was a right protected by the Constitution of Belize. Of course, the Constitution protects the freedom of association and assembly at section 13 but it was not clear from the text whether such a protection extends to a right to protest. The High Court of Belize concluded that it is a right, but not an absolute one. 

Background 

In January of 2022 the stevedores engaged in industrial action in pursuit of an ongoing trade dispute with the Port of Belize. Naturally this impacted the Port’s operations and led to economic losses on the days of the strike. The Port filed a lawsuit against the Christian Workers Union (CWU) and and a few of its stevedore members for the loss that it incurred during the strike, saying that the strike was illegal and that the union should be liable for those losses. The CWU contended that existing legislation provided it with a blanket immunity against any claims arising out of industrial action in pursuit of an ongoing trade dispute. 

Immunity for strikes?

The first question the High Court  had to decide was the scope of the immunities and whether it applied to the union and its members. It was revealed that the Trade Union Act (TUA) at sections 33 and 34(1) provided unions a total immunity against any actions brought against them for loss caused by industrial actions resulting from an ongoing trade dispute. At the same time, the Trade Unions and Employers Organization (Registration, Recognition, Status) Act (TUEOA) provides a much narrower immunity for union members than the TUA at section 16(2). The basic question became, can both immunities exist together?

The High Court found that the two provisions cannot be reconciled with each other, with the only conclusion being that the narrower immunity contained in the TUEOA silently  repealed the one in the TUA. 

Reading in a right to strike

The Court also explored the constitutionality of worker strikes. It found that the TUEOA incorporates the rights of workers under the Constitution. For reference, the relevant part of the TUEOA reads:

4.-(1) Subject to section 13 of the Belize Constitution, Cap. 4, every employee shall have and be entitled to enjoy the basic rights specified in subsection (2).


(2) The basic rights referred to in subsection (1) of this section are,



[…]


(g) exercising any other rights conferred on employees by this Act or any Regulations made hereunder, the Belize Constitution, Cap. 4, or any other law governing labour and employment relations, and assisting any other employee, union representative, shop steward, safety representative or trade union in the exercise of such rights [emphasis added]

This wording, the Court noted, meant that it was intended by the National Assembly that workers would have their rights constitutionally protected. 

In trying to determine whether the right to protest is contained in the Constitution, reference was made to international conventions that Belize is a party to such as the Charter of the Organization of American States, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the relevant conventions of the International Labour Organization. These conventions explicitly state that the right to protest is a fundamental right of workers and the Canadian case Saskatchewan Federation of Labour et al v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan determined that the freedom of association includes the right to strike. In Justice Chabot’s judgment, this meant that the Belizean Constitution also contained a right to strike.

A Limited Right 

After determining that the Constitution indeed contains and protects the right to strike, Justice Chabot clarified that the right is not absolute and is subject to the condition of legality. This means that where Belizean law states that in certain circumstances it is illegal to strike, the immunity contained in the TUEOA will not apply and unions open themselves up to lawsuits from persons affected by the strike. 

This condition of legality is recognized by the ILO  (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), Article 3 and in some jurisdictions, some classes of workers (public servants and other essential workers) are not allowed to strike. 

Justice Chabot’s judgment brings into light the existence of the right to strike embedded within the Constitution’s protection of the freedom of assembly and association and further clarifies the nature of that right. A judgment from the court on whether the strike by the CWU was illegal and who bears the liability for the economic losses caused by the strike was greatly anticipated before the Government of Belize bought over the Port of Belize and attached the withdrawal of the claims against the CWU as a condition of the sale. As a result, that part of the question remains undecided.