Redundancy: Closure of Berger Paints

On 24 February 2026, Berger Paints Barbados Ltd (BPBL) announced that it would be closing down on 24 April 2026. And on 28 February 2026, the Government published a statement¹ about the closure of BPBL.

The Labour Minister stated that - 

“Good practice and legal rulings suggest and mandate that the consultation must be meaningful. I am not sure how meaningful consultation can be if a decision has already been made and if it appears to be written in stone. On the legal side, therefore, my concern is that the announcement may tarnish the ability of the company and the trade union representing the workers to have meaningful consultations.” 

Employment Rights Act 2012

BPBL has no legal obligation to undertake redundancy consultation - before it made a final decision to close down its business. Because the consultation requirements set out in section 31 of the Employment Rights Act 2012 (ERA) does not address a situation where an employer is closing down.

For example, section 31 of the ERA does not state that an employer must consult about the ways of avoiding or reducing redundancy dismissals.  If section 31 of the ERA did so - it would follow that consulting about preventing the closure of BPBL - would be a way of avoiding or reducing redundancy dismissals.

Hence, the author would propose that section 31 of the ERA should be amended to state that an employer must consult about the ways of avoiding or reducing redundancy dismissals.

Section 31 of the ERA does not state or imply that an employer must undertake redundancy consultation - before the employer makes a final decision to close down its business². Hence, the consultation requirements set out in section 31(6)(b) of the ERA are ineffective - where an employer is closing down its whole business on a predetermined date.

Case Law

The author is unaware of any case law in relation to section 31 of the ERA that ruled that an employer must undertake redundancy consultation - before the employer makes a final decision to close down its business. The Government did not quote any case law to support its statement.

Good Practice

An employer has no obligation to follow any practice that the Government considers to be good practice. And the definition of good practice will vary from one employer to another employer³. However, the author agrees with the Government that redundancy consultation must be meaningful (and genuine).

See the news item entitled Redundancy Consultation. 

Also see Why Bother Consulting About Redundancies? in the news item entitled CCJ Reduces Award for Unfair Dismissal.

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

1. The Government's statement is available at the Barbados GIS website. The statement is dated 28 February 2026 and is entitled "Labour Minister's Statement On Closure Of Berger Paints".

2. See paragraph 49 of the Court of Appeal's judgment in BAMC v Wickham (CA) and paragraph 82 of the Caribbean Court of Justice's judgment in Chefette v Harris (CCJ) for further information about the interpretation of the ERA.

3. BPBL’s press release about its closure stated that “Beyond the regulatory requirements, Berger Paints Barbados is providing additional support for its employees”. For example, BPBL would provide its “employees with resume writing support and career-planning guidance”. Such additional support for BPBL’s employees may be considered as good practice.

Reducing Working Hours After the Minimum Wage Increases

If the minimum wage (MW) increases - can an employer lawfully reduce an employee's working hours?

The answer to this question will depend on whether the working hours are contractual or non-contractual¹.

The 2nd Schedule of the Minimum Wage (National and Sectoral Minimum Wage) Order 2026 states that - 

"For the avoidance of doubt, this Order does not affect the normal working hours of Security Guards"

There is no statutory definition of normal working hours in the MW legislation. However, such a definition can be found in the Employment Rights Act 2012 (ERA). Section 13(3) of the ERA states that - 

“The expression “normal working hours”, in relation to an employee, means those hours which are stated in his contract of employment to be his normal working hours”.

For example, if a contract of employment states that an employee’s normal working hours are 40 hours per week. But the employee usually works 60 hours per week (i.e. 40 hours plus 20 overtime hours). The employer may lawfully reduce or remove the overtime hours without the agreement of the employee or a recognised trade union - if the overtime is non-contractual.

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

1. The terms of employment are usually contractual and non-contractual. Whether a term is contractual or non-contractual may depend on how the term is written, e.g. a bonus or overtime may be contractual or non-contractual. If a term (e.g. normal working hours or rate of pay) is contractual - it can only be lawfully changed with the agreement of an employee or a recognised trade union (RTU). If a term is non-contractual - an employer may change or remove the term without the agreement of an employee or a RTU. It may be implied that an unwritten term (e.g. a bonus or overtime) is contractual via custom and practice.