IT’S a curious thing, isn’t it? A law that was designed to protect workers is now potentially hindering the very industries that employ so many.
The Employment Relations Act (ERA) of 2007 was a product of its time, crafted in an era where the tourism landscape – and no doubt, many other industries – was markedly different.
Yet, here we are in 2025, with an industry that has evolved, adapted and transformed, still operating under a framework that doesn’t quite fit. In fact, one of many frameworks that has failed to keep up with this and many other industries in the country.
At the Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association (FHTA), we’ve been part of the frontline charge with other employers for a more pragmatic and future-fit Employment Act.
Grounded in extensive consultations with our members, and active engagement through the Fiji Commerce & Employers Federation (FCEF), as well as the Employment Relations Advisory Board (ERAB), we’ve pinpointed critical gaps in the proposed legislation amendments that hinder operational flexibility and workforce sustainability in the current economic climate.
And have not held back whenever there was a need to point out the lack of business understanding or plain common sense.
While we welcome reform, we remain firmly opposed to amendment proposals that disproportionately favour union interests, proposals that risk destabilising the delicate balance between worker rights and employer viability.
Our advocacy is rooted in fairness, evidence and the urgent need to align employment frameworks with the realities of Fiji’s evolving labour market.
Our goal is not to undermine worker protections.
On the contrary, in response to the acute and persistent challenges of accessing skilled labour, Fijian employers, like those around the world, have increasingly embraced pro-worker practices. Challenges that go far deeper in a Pacific island country like ours.
If this simple fact has gone unnoticed by policymakers and those who whisper in their ears, then more people than we realise have their collective heads in the sand.
These efforts, ranging from improved working conditions and flexible arrangements to targeted upskilling and inclusive workplace cultures, are designed to enhance retention, boost productivity, and foster long-term resilience.
I can only speak for the tourism industry, but we have consistently and loudly acknowledged that our staff are one of the key reasons for the industry’s success. In many cases, these working conditions reflect a pragmatic shift: recognising that sustainable growth depends on empowered, well-supported workforces. Strengthening protections and investing in people are not opposing goals; they are complementary pillars of a future-ready economy.
We acknowledge that not all employers are compliant.
However, the ministries responsible for enforcement and oversight often lack the necessary skills, resources and, most critically, the speed to effectively address serious cases of non-compliance.
Over time, this leads to a tangled web of unresolved issues, where weak oversight inadvertently creates the very loopholes that are exploited.
Rather than addressing these systemic shortcomings, it becomes easier to blame outdated systems and propose overly punitive policies, policies that risk ensnaring even compliant employers.
The result is a regulatory environment where well-intentioned businesses become vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement and, in some cases, ministerial staff whose unchecked authority can make their lives unnecessarily difficult.
This is not the path to fair or effective governance. We need smarter systems, not heavier ones, ones that target genuine non-compliance without punishing those who are trying to do the right thing.
Fiji’s tourism industry is a significant economic driver, contributing nearly 40 per cent to the nation’s GDP. In 2023, we welcomed a record 929,740 international visitors, surpassing pre-pandemic levels and solidifying tourism’s role as the backbone of our economy.
However, this success comes with its own set of challenges, particularly concerning our workforce.
Subject to seasonal fluctuations, high staff mobility, and a mix of local and international workers, many resorts operate across multiple islands or a mix of mainland and island, with staff rosters rotating daily to meet fluctuating demand, connect with transport schedules and align with Collective Agreements and individual contracts.
This necessitates a high degree of flexibility in staffing arrangements, something the current ERA has never adequately supported, and has still not shown an interest in addressing.
As our manufacturing sector steps up their production ranges that provide natural outflows into the export markets, the economy diversifies further into the Business Process Outsourcing, and the proliferation of SME businesses expand with the targeted support from government; how do these expanding growth areas continue to develop in an economy that is already limited by skill gaps, higher costs of business and our distance from the rest of the world adding to our reliance on importation of most goods?
Certainly not by making business compliance even harder.
The Act’s amendment provisions on absolute liability and the criminalisation of minor contract breaches create significant risks for every business.
A simple administrative error, such as a missed payroll entry or a delay in updating a staff roster, could lead to disproportionate penalties.
This is particularly concerning for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which form the backbone of both tourism and the greater economy and often operate on tight margins.
By all means, punish bad employers, those who exploit workers, flout safety standards, or deliberately undermine labour rights.
But we must also ensure that enforcement mechanisms are guided by fairness, proportionality and context.
Blanket penalties or rigid interpretations of the law risk punishing well-intentioned businesses for administrative oversights or systemic constraints beyond their control. In a sector as dynamic and people-driven as tourism, where compliance often intersects with capacity, training and infrastructure gaps, a more nuanced approach is essential.
We have consistently raised strong concerns about proposed new provisions that grant labour officers unchecked authority to impose penalties, conduct inspections and confiscate property at any time. Authority that exceeds even those of police officers!
While we fully support the need for robust compliance mechanisms, such sweeping powers, without clear procedural safeguards, pose serious risks.
More critically, the absence of oversight or accountability creates fertile ground for misuse and corruption, undermining trust in the very systems meant to uphold fairness.
There are already confirmed cases of corruption and misapplication of labour penalties, just as there are confirmed instances of employer liability in wage theft, unfair dismissals and breaches of employment standards.
This dual reality underscores the need for a balanced, transparent and accountable system that protects workers while ensuring fair treatment of employers.
No one wins when well-intentioned sounding proposals, such as mandating double pay plus an additional day off for weekend and public holiday work (effectively triple time), lead to unintended consequences.
For many SMEs, tourism operators, hospitality, restaurants, transport, tours and other service providers, such provisions are simply unaffordable.
The result? Businesses across the country will be forced to shut their doors on peak demand days, not out of choice, but out of financial necessity.
In Australia and New Zealand, similar provisions exist, but the cost burden is partially offset by government subsidies and broader economic support.
Even then, many SMEs in those countries still opt to close on public holidays for the same reason, because the cost of compliance outweighs the revenue potential.
We must be careful not to design policies or copy first-world examples that inadvertently punish the very businesses that drive employment, especially in remote and seasonal economies.
A more balanced approach is needed, one that works for Fijian conditions, protecting workers’ rights while recognising the operational realities of SMEs and the economic ecosystems they sustain.
Of growing concern is the adversarial “us versus them” narrative that has begun to dominate the industrial relations space, fuelled in part by union agendas that appear increasingly personal and politically motivated.
Rather than fostering constructive dialogue or pursuing balanced outcomes, some union representatives seem intent on securing a legacy they hope will reclaim years of eroded membership, using proposals that prioritise visibility and influence over practicality and fairness.
Among the narrow-sighted proposals is the requirement for employers to offer new workers a choice between an individual contract of service or a collective agreement, which is unnecessary, administratively burdensome, and risks turning employers into de facto recruiters for unions.
The current framework, where each worker enters into an individual contract of service with collective agreements implying certain terms where applicable, has functioned effectively and equitably.
No compelling evidence or justification has been provided for altering this arrangement.
The right to strike is another area of concern.
While we respect workers’ rights to collective bargaining, strike provisions should be limited to failed collective bargaining to prevent unnecessary operational disruption.
Clear conditions for unfair dismissal are essential to allow any business to manage performance and redundancy fairly without facing excessive legal exposure.
The current provisions are overly prescriptive and don’t account for the unique challenges faced by businesses with redundancies usually based on economic, technological or structural reasons.
A small business that must shut down because it can no longer compete with larger companies that are using technology to increase production and productivity cannot be expected to find alternative employment for its workers.
But this is being demanded in the amendments.
We have acknowledged some progress to review the many areas that employers raised strong concerns over. But there is a long way to go yet.
The push to bypass the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process to fast-track cases into court, the criminalisation of basic contractual breaches, the harassment provisions that do not effectively qualify what the “reasonable steps” showing compliance are and that are also inconsistent with the harassment legislation in the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission Act, the invalidation of Non Compete Clauses in contracts, the inadequate definitions for Wage Theft that sit alongside hefty fines, jail terms and wide reaching liability, the broad definitions in the Unfair Dismissal provisions, and the sneaky insertion of the Bargaining Fee provision that essentially demands every single worker must pay union dues – have left employers with clearer certainty about who the Employment Bill Amendments were really written for.
At the heart of the push to comprehensively amend the Act, originally intended to address only a few targeted areas for modernisation, is a troubling lack of clear, evidence-based policy direction.
The scope of reform has expanded dramatically, yet there is no guiding policy document to justify such a sweeping overhaul.
This absence raises serious questions about the necessity and rationale behind amending nearly the entire Act.
There is a concerning list of other absences in the amendments – failing to address the modernising of Fiji’s employment and labour practices with specific provisions for the Gig Economy and the future of work.
Workers do not only find work on land, in factories and in offices – they also work out at sea, on remote islands, in workplaces with complicated technology, from home, deep in mines and high up at 35,000ft.
It fails to discuss the importance of productivity as the expected driver for economic diversity and reform that will drive the development aspirations of our National Development Plan (NDP).
Modernising the ERA is not about weakening worker protections; ultimately, a fair and balanced framework protects workers, empowers responsible employers and strengthens the integrity of Fiji’s labour market.
This is why reform must be rooted in fairness, due process and accountability on both sides – driven, one would assume, by clear policy direction and evidence showing why it must be changed.
We need clear guidelines for enforcement, independent oversight, and mechanisms for appeal and redress. At the same time, we must continue to hold employers to high standards, ensuring that employment practices are lawful, ethical and aligned with national development goals.
But just as importantly, it must ensure that compliance is not made unnecessarily complex or punitive, especially for the vast majority of employers who are already doing the right thing.
FCEF board member Deepak Rathod, right, chats with member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economic Affairs Semi Koroilavesau after Monday’s official in-person submission by FCEF to the Council on the ERA (Amendment) Bill No.27, 2025. Picture: FCEF
