Employment Relations Bill consultation

Labasa Chamber of Commerce, President Vinesh Dayal says passing the Employment Relations Bill in its current form is going to be disastrous as it does not consider economic realities of the country and over-regulation will cripple the MSMEs which employs 80 percent of our workforce.

While speaking during public consultation at the Labasa Town Council Chamber, Dayal says criminalising administrative mistakes sends the wrong message to investors and business owners.

He says the Bill risks turning honest employers into criminals for non-malicious oversights and criminal penalties must reserved for deliberate, fraudulent, or dangerous breaches and not for human error.



Dayal also says that compliance should be built through education and warnings, not fear of prosecution.



The Chamber President says investor confidence cannot be built by threatening people with jail over administrative mistakes and Fiji’s economy is too small to survive a system that punishes rather than partners with employers.

Dayal says we must balance labour protection with economic growth otherwise we risk discouraging investment and driving businesses underground.

The Labasa businessman also raised concerns about the Bill giving too much powers to labour officers and stresses you cannot give anyone the power to walk into a business, seize documents and act as judge and jury.

He says without proper oversight, these powers will invite corruption, intimidation and abuse and a labour officer should not have the authority to shut down a business on the spot without understanding the situation.

Dayal adds there must be a clear code of conduct and written notice, not blind authority.

Public consultations on the Employment Relations Bill continues.

One of the top legal firms in the country, Munro Leys has said in a legal alert that some proposed changes in the Employment Relations Bill, particularly the ones which attempt to use criminal law as a blunt instrument to improve employee rights – are poorly targeted and work against good regulation.

They say these proposed changes reflect a mindset in which all employers are treated as “big and bad” and must be threatened with fines and imprisonment to follow the law.

The law firm says the Ministry’s solution is to give more power to its own officials to ignore due process and fairness.

Munro Leys says the new law will impose new costs and risks on employers, and it will discourage employers from employing staff and it will burden SME employers especially.

They say the Employment Ministry needs to re-think its attitude and approach to the unusual new criminal measures it wants to enact.

The law firm says it seems evident that the Ministry (and perhaps labour organisations) are frustrated that current employment laws are slow and cumbersome to administer and enforce.

They say while in many cases that is true, there is a better solution – do the necessary work to make the current rights-based employment law system more efficient.

Munro Leys says some of these law changes may breach basic constitutional rights.

They add many of the major changes in the Employment Relations (Amendment) Bill 2025, in their view, are not sensible.

The changes, if they are passed by Parliament, will include “instant fines” for employers of up to $1,000, “absolute liability” for underpaid wages (“wage theft”) even where this occurred by mistake or oversight, other fines and monetary penalties of up to $1 million, jail terms for employers, including for directors of corporate employers making employers criminally liable for workplace issues such as sexual harassment or unjustified dismissals or “unfair” redundancies expanding the powers of labour inspectors, including the power to prosecute employers for failing to comply with their directives (reasonable or otherwise), and imposing “bargaining fees” on non-unionised workers where unionised employees receive any improvement in their terms

The 106-page Bill contains 142 amendments.

Munro Leys says earlier consultation rounds were ineffective and shrouded in secrecy for no obvious reason.

Both union and employer representatives consulted in the initial drafting of the Bill were legally prevented from sharing proposed law changes with their members.

They add the process to formulate the Bill on issues which affect how hundreds of thousands of people work was poor to start with.

Consultations continue on the Bill.

Deputy Chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economic Affairs, Premila Kumar says despite being briefed by the Ministry of Employment that MSMEs will first be given improvement notices for employment law breaches instead of a fine, they are concerned that this is not part of the Employment Relations Bill.

Kumar highlighted this while responding to questions on fines during the consultation on the Employment Relations Bill at the Labasa Town Council Chamber, saying that the fines were introduced as a deterrent to ensure businesses operate in the cleanest possible way.

She says MSMEs do not have access to professionals such as qualified accountants, OHS officers, or HR personnel.

Kumar says if something goes wrong, the Ministry of Employment has briefed them that improvement notices will be issued first, and various steps will be taken before any fines are imposed but their concern is that this process is not stated in the current legislation.

She stresses there has to be some reference made in the Act, and then they can develop the regulation, and that is something they will consider in their report.

Consultation on the Employment Relations Bill continues.

The need for a new monitoring mechanism to ensure foreign workers receive what they are owed was highlighted in the submission from Fiji Human Rights and Anti Discrimination Commission regarding the Employment Relations Bill.

Commission Complaints Officer, Mithleshni Gurdayal has recommended that the Immigration Department work closely with the Ministry of Employment when vetting visa applications, contracts, and putting in place monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the foreign workers receive what they are owed.

She highlights that sometimes, the Bangladeshi workers sign two contracts, one in Bangladesh in their language, where they are shown bigger money that they will be receiving however when they actually arrive here, things are different.

She reveals that there are some Bangladeshi workers also going through a lot of mental stress, adding that some are waiting to be sent back to their country as they have not been earning for the last 5 months.

Gurdayal says migrant workers have also faced cases where they are quickly put on the plane to be flown back to their home country so that employers are not held accountable for the violations and contract breaches.

She further highlights that the complaints made to commission include OHS training, OHS tools and equipment, freedom from cruel and degrading treatment, for example, eating leftover food, poor living conditions, the lack of right to redress and remedies.

Gurdayal calls on the Ministry of Employment, Fiji Immigration, Human Rights Commission, and the Fiji Police Force to work together and have a unit to monitor and deal with such issues.

Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association CEO, Fantasha Lockington has raised concerns over the new harassment provisions in Section 75A of the proposed Employment Relations Bill, stressing the clauses are ambiguous and may have legal implications for businesses.

Speaking during submissions to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economic Affairs, Lockington mentioned that while they acknowledge the attempt to define sexual harassment under Section 75A(3), the Bill lacks the detailed implementation rules required to ensure clarity and fairness in its application.

She says the current provisions are inconsistent with the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission Act.

Lockington says that the businesses could face significant fines if a worker is found to have suffered harm, even when the employer’s actions were reasonable or justified, such as in cases of performance management.

The CEO says existing laws and workplace policies already provide sufficient legal frameworks for addressing sexual harassment and workplace bullying.

Lockington says there are undefined scope of harassment in the Bill, which includes verbal, physical and visual behaviour.

She questioned how subjective claims would be assessed and whether normal workplace interactions could be misinterpreted as unlawful conduct.

She further asked whether owners of buildings or organisations would be held liable if a sexual harassment incident occurred during an event by a third party who had hired the premises. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economic Affairs Chair, Premila Kumar questioned how sexual harassment could be linked to the size of a business.

Lockington responded that they do not understand the connection and stressed that the size of the business should not matter.

She says sexual harassment is sexual harassment.

The CEO adds that if an employer has created a safe workplace, trained all staff, and implemented strict anti-harassment policies, yet an external person commits an offence, it is unclear why the employer should be held responsible.

Lockington emphasised the need for a clear demarcation of responsibility under the Bill.

One of the top legal firms in the country, Munro Leys is sounding warning bells regarding the changes in the Employment Relations Bill where, if passed, the law will allow a court or tribunal to impose criminal liability and severe penalties, including garnishee orders and departure prohibition orders, for contractual issues which are usually civil, not criminal, in nature.

According to the proposed law, employers can now be fined for failing to justify summary dismissal or where an employee suffers workplace sexual harassment.

The law firm says a worker could be sexually harassed by another worker, a customer of the employer or any other person but the employer will pay the fine if they are found to have not done enough to prevent it.

Previously prosecutions had to be brought within 12 months of the offence.

This has now been extended to six years, long after an employer’s management or other witnesses may have left their jobs, meaning it is more difficult for an employer to find the evidence to defend a prosecution for a long-ago event.

At present grievances of this kind are resolved by an employee suing an employer in civil proceedings.

Munro Leys says the current system is undoubtedly inefficient and leave employees waiting a long time for compensation.

They say the solution is to improve the efficiency of that system, it is not to impose poorly-defined criminal offences and civil penalties on employers.

Munro Leys says the Bill would dramatically expand the powers of the Permanent Secretary and labour inspectors through new sections 19 and 19A, including authority to enter and inspect workplaces at any time, demand employment records, issue compliance and penalty notices, and enforce fines without restraint.

The law firm highlights that these expanded powers lack adequate safeguards against potential misuse, potentially breaching constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure and the separation of powers by allowing officials to determine breaches and fines, rather than the courts.

They also say an environment of arbitrary enforcement instead of one governed by reason and logic creates the potential for abuse and – usually not far behind it – corruption.

The law firm says the Ministry appears to be particularly fixated on “wage theft”.

They say it is unfair for employees to be short-paid by their employers and no responsible employer would allow it but there are many reasons why short-payments may occur.

Munro Leys says IT systems may fail, a payroll or personnel manager may misunderstand an overtime rule, or a busy SME employer may just make a mathematical error.

It says if the Ministry chooses to prosecute, an innocent mistake is not a defence as absolute liability applies.

Under the Bill, individual employers and directors of corporate employers face fines up of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to five years.

The corporate entities face fines of up to $1 million.

Consultations continue on the Employment Relations Bill.

Most of the time people visit their facebook page, but don’t have the time to check the Employment Relations Bill online.

This was highlighted by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economic Affairs member, Sakiusa Tubuna during the Employment Relations Bill consultation in Levuka this week, after a resident raised concerns about the lack of public access to the bill before the discussions.

The Levuka resident told the committee that many in attendance had not seen or received a copy of the proposed bill and were therefore unable to engage in an informed discussion.

In response, Tubuna said that public announcements had already been made two weeks earlier, informing people that the Employment Relations Bill was available on the Fiji Parliament website.

He reminded the public that it is their responsibility to access and review the bill before attending the consultations.

Consultations on the bill continues in Rakiraki today. 

Concerns about fairness, accountability, and worker entitlements were raised during public consultations on the Employment Relations (Amendment) Bill in Levuka.

Ravuama Nagatalevu of Nasova Village, Levuka, welcomed the inclusion of a clause in the Bill that penalises anyone who absconds without paying employees, saying it will help prevent dishonest employers from avoiding their responsibilities.

However, he also suggested that accountability measures should apply to everyone, not just employers.

Nagatalevu also raised the issue of long service leave, a benefit that many civil servants once enjoyed but was removed under contract-based employment arrangements.

He suggested that it should be brought back, especially since the contract system has been shelved.

Responding to his concerns, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economic Affairs Deputy Chair and MP Premila Kumar said the Bill already includes provisions covering trade union registration, member rights, and the process for closing or merging unions.

On the issue of long service leave, Kumar says the government must consider financial sustainability before reinstating the entitlement.

Despite differing views, both speakers agreed that the laws should protect workers while also supporting a sustainable and fair employment system for the future.

Concerns over worker exploitation and the impact of proposed labour laws on small businesses took centre stage today where the Deputy Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs, Premila Kumar also acknowledged that parts of the Employment Relations Bill are poorly worded and open to multiple interpretations, creating confusion around certain provisions — including those concerning potential criminal penalties for wage disputes.

During the consultation on the Bill in parliament today, Kumar also clarified that the Bill could not be returned to Employment Relations Advisory Board as it had already passed through Cabinet and referred to Parliament.

Kumar says the parliamentary committee’s role is to ensure the Bill is practical, enforceable, and aligned with both Fiji’s Constitution and International Labour Organization (ILO) standards.

She says the committee would consider all submissions received from the public before recommending amendments to Parliament.

While speaking at the consultation, Felix Parker, a private sector employee and small business owner, urged lawmakers to ensure that the Bill prioritises the protection of workers’ rights and promotes fair treatment for all employees.

Parker, who described himself as both an employer and a worker, stressed the importance of creating fair employment conditions that would encourage skilled workers to remain in Fiji rather than seeking opportunities abroad.

Another speaker, also a small business owner, echoed similar concerns, saying the Bill in its current form poses serious challenges for micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs).

The business owner urged that the Bill be referred to the Employment Relations Advisory Board for further review, noting the need for a “tiered approach” and the removal of criminalisation clauses that could penalise employers.

University of Fiji Vice-Chancellor, Professor Shaista Shameem, has warned that proposed amendments to the Employment Relations Act could create long-term conflict between workers and employers if not carefully reviewed, emphasising contradictions in the section dealing with trade union membership.

Speaking during public consultations at the Nasinu Council Chambers, Professor Shameem urged the government not to rush the review process, emphasising that the legislation defines the relationship between labour and capital and must therefore be handled with great care.

She highlighted a major flaw in the proposed Bill, which states that "a worker must voluntarily join a trade union and engage in collective bargaining."

She adds that mixing both will only lead to confusion, disputes, and endless court cases.

The Vice-Chancellor also criticised the removal of the Labour Management Consultation and Cooperation mechanism from the main Act.

She says the mechanism, which was part of the original 2007 Employment Relations Act, played a vital role in fostering good-faith dialogue between employers and employees, thereby promoting mutual understanding and workplace productivity.

Professor Shameem says that just because many employers and workers have not used this, or have only used it in a limited way, does not mean it is unimportant to the landscape of modern labour-capital relations in Fiji.

She says the mechanism is based on good-faith relations and should be retained.

Another concern raised by the Vice-Chancellor was that the Fiji Police Force and the Fiji Corrections Service were included in the proposed Bill, but the Republic of Fiji Military Forces was not.

She questioned why these two institutions were being included in the proposed Bill and asked how a situation would be managed if the police encountered a problem and decided to go on strike.

She says it also needs to be clear why the RFMF is being excluded from the proposed Bill.

Professor Shameen also stressed that there are heavy penalty clauses, particularly those targeting employers, with some clauses imposing fines or imprisonment immediately upon a breach.

She says that in previous drafts, employers and workers found in breach of the law were given an opportunity to be heard before penalties were applied, but the new draft triggers fines and imprisonment automatically.

She adds that the Bill also proposes extending the time limit for resolving grievances or disputes from 12 months to six years.

She warned that such an extended timeframe could weaken the effectiveness of mediation and tribunal processes, as witnesses may disappear and cases could be left unresolved.

The Vice-Chancellor is urging lawmakers to return to the foundational principles of the 2007 Employment Relations Act, stressing the importance of clarity, good-faith consultation, and balance between labour and capital to ensure sustainable industrial harmony in Fiji.

In response, Acting Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Employment, Atish Kumar clarified that the mechanism had not been completely removed but had been relocated from the main Act to the regulations.

He says the Employment Relations Advisory Board, which includes both union and employer representatives, had agreed to keep the mechanism at the regulatory level since its primary purpose is to promote workplace productivity rather than address industrial or union disputes.

Kumar adds that the Ministry is training both employers and workers to establish mechanism committees, particularly in workplaces with 20 or more employees.

He also clarified that while police and prison personnel have the right to collective bargaining under the proposed Bill, they will not be permitted to go on strike.

Deputy Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs, Premila Kumar acknowledged that the wording of the Bill leaves room for multiple interpretations.

She says that when the Acting Permanent Secretary explains it, it makes sense, but when reading the law, it does not.

She adds that this is something the committee has realised and discussed at length in various forums.

Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation (FCEF) MSME Council Chair, Rakin Wahed, claims his business was unfairly targeted by Labour Officers just a week after releasing a video online criticising the Employment Relations (Amendment) Bill — an incident he describes as “highly suspicious” and “intimidating.”

This comes after a statement by Minister for Employment Agni Deo Singh rejecting the claims, saying the visit was part of a “routine inspection” and that three other workplaces in the same premises were also checked.

In an interview with fijivillage News today, Wahed, who owns a media and video production company, said the officers questioned him about the type of videos his company produced before demanding employment records, including digital contracts and bank statements.

Wahed says the inspection raised “serious procedural and legal concerns,” alleging that the request for bank statements went beyond what the law allows.

The FCEF has since condemned what it describes as alleged intimidation tactics, saying the inspection appeared to target one of its members who had publicly criticised the Bill.

FCEF Chief Executive Officer Edward Bernard says that out of more than 25 businesses in the same complex, Labour Officers only inspected Wahed’s office.

However Agni Deo Singh says the allegation that the FCEF member alone was targeted is incorrect, adding that the inspection found the business in breach of Sections 44 and 45 of the Employment Relations Act 2007 for failing to provide wage statements and maintain wage and time records.

He says these are not minor oversights but core legal obligations and that the Ministry’s actions were necessary and lawful.

Singh also confirmed that Wahed was issued a 30-day compliance notice, saying all Labour Officers operate strictly within legal boundaries.

Wahed, however, maintains that his company, which employs one staff member, operates fully online and provides payslips digitally when required.

He told fijivillage News that current inspection methods fail to recognise modern business practices.

Wahed also warned that under the proposed Bill, businesses may no longer receive 30-day compliance notices but face instant penalties.

He says the Bill will make it harder for small businesses to survive.