Minimum Wage: Where is the Law About a Trainees’ Pay?

A person must be an employee¹ in order to be entitled to the minimum wage (MW).

The Government has announced that the hourly rate of the MW will increase from $8.50 to $10.50 from 1 June 2025. A video of the announcement can be viewed on YouTube.

The Government also agreed to the Minimum Wage Board's recommendation that 85% of the MW should be paid to a person on a recognised training programme that does not exceed three months.

But where is the law that implements the recommendation? Such a law is not mentioned in the Minimum Wage (National and Sectoral Minimum Wage) Order 2025 (SI 2025/55). Is the law mentioned in an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act 2017 or any other labour law? 

Please note that it is unlawful to pay 85% of the MW to an employee¹ - if there is no legal basis for doing so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The definition of an employee can be found in section 2 of the Minimum Wage Act 2017.

Disability Discrimination (Barbados)

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2025 (RPDA) came into force on 6 February 2025. However, the Employment (Prevention of Discrimination) Act 2020

(E(PD)A) has provided discrimination rights for persons with disabilities in relation to their employment from 21 September 2020. For example, under section 7 of the E(PD)A, an employer has a legal duty to make a reasonable adjustment for a person with a disability in relation to their employment.

Surprisingly, there is a significant difference between the statutory definitions of a disability. Under the RPDA, a disability (e.g. a mental disability) must be "certified by a registered medical practitioner". But, under E(PD)A, a disability (e.g. a mental disability) does not have to be certified by a registered medical practitioner.

Transgender Discrimination (Barbados)

In the case of Hoffmann v Court Caribbean Law Practice, the Employment Rights Tribunal confirmed that it is not automatically unfair to dismiss an employee due to their transgender under section 30 of the Employment Rights Act 2012.

Also see the news item entitled Additional Award for Automatic Unfair Dismissal.

Please note that the Employment (Prevention of Discrimination) Act 2020

(E(PD)A) does not apply to transgender discrimination. See section 3(2) of the E(PD)A.

The Labour Clauses (Concessions) Act 2024

Labour Clause 

Under section 4(1)(a) of the Labour Clauses (Concessions) Act 2024 (LC(C)A) - the Government may suspend or revoke a concession (e.g. a tax exemption) that has been granted to an employer - if the employer has failed to comply with a labour clause - in the 2nd Schedule of the LC(C)A) 2024. For example, the 6th labour clause states that - 

"6. An employer shall recognize the freedom of their employees to be members of a registered trade union and recognize their right to bargain collectively."

If, e.g. an employer recognises the trade union, ABC, for the purposes of collective bargaining. And 60% and 35% of the employees in the bargaining unit are members of the trade unions ABC and XYZ respectively. Does the 6^th labour clause mean that the employer must also recognise the trade union, XYZ, for the purposes of collective bargaining?

The 6th labour clause is not complemented by trade union recognition/derecognition legislation¹.

As at 1 June 2025 - the author is unaware of any concession being suspended or revoked from an employer - due to the employer's failure to comply with a labour clause.

Labour Law

The Government may also suspend or revoke a concession (e.g. a tax exemption) that has been granted to an employer - if the employer has failed to comply with a labour law, e.g. the Employment Rights Act 2012 (ERA). See section 4(1)(b) and the 3rd Schedule of the LC(C)A 2024.

The definition of a concession can be found in section 2 of the LC(C)A 2024.

As at 1 June 2025 - the author is unaware of any concession being suspended or revoked from an employer - due to the employer's failure to comply with a labour law. 

Out-of-Court Settlements

The LC(C)A 2024 may provide an incentive for an employer to reach an out-of-court settlement for a labour clause/law claim.  If one assumes, e.g. in the case of an unfair dismissal claim (UDC), that a Court must rule that the employer has failed to comply with the ERA 2012 - in order for a concession to be suspended or revoked. See section 2.4.2 Litigation or Out-of-Court Settlement? in the topic entitled Disciplinary Procedures (Barbados).

An employer may argue that the Government's suspension or revocation of a concession is an abuse of power - if the suspension or revocation is not based on a Court's ruling. Because only a Court has the legal authority to determine - whether or not an employer has failed to comply with the ERA 2012, e.g. whether a dismissal is unfair.

How will the LC(C)A 2024 Operate in Practice?
 
It is unknown how the LC(C)A 2024 will operate in practice. For example, if one assumes that a Court must rule that an employer has failed to comply with the ERA 2012 - in order for a concession to be suspended or revoked. Will the Government suspend or revoke a concession - 

• After the Employment Rights Tribunal (or as the case may be after the Court of Appeal or the Caribbean Court of Justice) has ruled that an employer has failed to comply with the ERA 2012?
• Within a certain time-limit (e.g. one year) after a Court has ruled that an employer has failed to comply with the ERA 2012?
• By considering factors such as the size and resources of an employer - if the employer has failed to comply with the ERA 2012?

Hopefully, the practical operation of the LC(C)A 2024 will be explained by regulations made under section 6 of the LC(C)A 2024.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Further information about trade union recognition can be found on the Ministry of Labour's website.

Please note that it is automatically unfair to dismiss an employee for a trade union membership reason: section 30(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 2012. And it is unlawful to discriminate against a person (e.g. a job applicant or an employee) on the grounds of their trade union affiliation: section 3(2)(d) of the Employment (Prevention of Discrimination) Act 2020.

75 Year Old Employee was Unfairly Dismissed

In the case of Wood v Jada Builders Inc, Ms Woods’ retirement age was 66 years. However, she was allowed to continue working after her retirement age - until she was dismissed at the age of 75 years. The Tribunal ruled that Ms Wood’s dismissal was unfair. And she was entitled to claim that her dismissal was unfair - even though she was dismissed after her retirement age. See paragraphs 4.1 - 4.2 of the case transcript.

Redundancy Selection Policy

The Tribunal said that it was possible that the employer's "Oldest in, First out" redundancy selection policy may amount to unlawful age discrimination. The Tribunal (at paragraph 6.7) also said that -

“This was a missed opportunity to test the age discrimination provision in the Act. The Respondent’s (Jada Builders Inc.) “oldest in, first out” policy, which is documented nowhere in the manual or elsewhere, is on its face discriminatory. Age and no other factor informs its application. We are of the view, that had it been pleaded and argued, this case would have invited serious discussion on, and consideration of, an award (i.e. an award of up to 52 weeks’ wages) for age discrimination, protection against which is enshrined in section 30(1)(c)(xi)(A)…” 

For further information about the additional award for unlawful age discrimination - see the news item entitled Additional Award for Automatic Unfair Dismissal.

 

Analysis

Extending an Employee's Retirement Age 

An agreement about extending an employee’s normal retirement age (e.g. from 67 to 70 years) must be in writing. The agreement must also clearly state the terms and conditions of employment (TCE) - under which the employee will continue to work after their normal or extended retirement age. If the TCE have not changed - then the agreement must say so.  

Hence, it would be easier for an employer to convince a Tribunal that the reason for an employee’s dismissal is retirement - if the employee is dismissed on their extended retirement age (e.g. 70 years). 

In the case of Grant v Barbados Beach Club, the Tribunal ruled that Mr Grant's retirement dismissal was fair. The Tribunal in the Wood's case distinguished the facts of both cases at paragraph 6.6 of the case transcript.

Also see the news item entitled Government’s Statement About Retirement Age.