Provisions in the Employment Relations Bill No. 27 of 2025 that turn employment breaches into criminal offences could have “dangerous and far-reaching consequences” for Fiji’s business community.
Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation (FCEF) board member Watisoni Nata said the Bill proposed to make certain civil matters such as dismissal disputes, missing termination letters or minor procedural oversights – criminal in nature.
“The criminalisation of basic contractual breaches, particularly those lacking moral turpitude, objectively wrongful conduct is a dangerous and disproportionate shift in employment law,” Mr Nata said.
“Worse still, the legislation criminalises minor administrative oversights such as failing to provide a written reason for dismissal, which can easily occur in small businesses with limited HR (human resources) capacity or legal literacy.
“These are not acts of malice or exploitation. They are procedural missteps that should be rectified through education on civil remedies and not criminal sanctions.”
He said that criminalising them sends the wrong signal to investors and will cripple small businesses that are already struggling with compliance costs.
“Their inclusion and fees legislation places the country out of step with international norms and sends a chilling message to investors and employers that routine employment decisions carry the threat of criminal prosecution, and that’s a huge deal.
“This is especially damaging for small businesses, which form the backbone of ages economy and least equipped to navigate such legal minefields.”
Mr Nata said disciplinary or contract-related matters should remain within the Employment Relations Tribunal and mediation system, where parties could negotiate outcomes, not face criminal charges.
‘Bill turns employers into union recruiters’
THE Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation (FCEF) has strongly opposed a provision in the Employment Relations Bill 2025 that would require employers to offer new workers a choice between individual contracts and collective agreements.
FCEF chief executive officer Edward Benard told the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs the clause risks “turning employers into de facto recruiters for unions”.
“We strongly oppose the proposed provisions concerning individual contracts and collective agreements,” he said.
“The requirement for employers to offer new workers a choice… is unnecessary, administratively burdensome, and risks turning employers into de facto recruiters for unions.”
Mr Benard said the current framework, where each worker enters into an individual contract of service “with the collective agreements implying certain terms, where applicable” had “functioned effectively and equitably”.
“Individual employment contracts are tailored agreements,” he said.
“They allow employees to negotiate terms based on their unique skills and contributions.”
He warned that the proposed change “could lead to fragmented employment frameworks, inconsistency in entitlements, wage disparities and heightened legal risk”.
Mr Benard said employers had “strongly recommended” that Section 166 be removed from the Bill, saying the amendment “risk[s] destabilising a system that has been working for both employees and workers”.
‘Proposed fines unfair to small businesses’
FIJI Commerce and Employers Federation (FCEF) board member Watisoni Nata says proposed fines in the new Employment Relations Bill No. 27 of 2025 are excessive and unfairly weighted against small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs).
He told the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs earlier this week that the Bill assumed all employers were large corporations when in fact the majority of Fiji’s businesses were small operators with limited cash flow.
“We acknowledge the review of the originally high maximum penalties, which were disproportionate to the potential seriousness of the offenses, but the penalties assume that all employers are large entities and that all breaches be qualified as extremely serious,” Mr Nata said.
“However, this leaves out SMEs who cannot afford these fines for low infractions that risk punishing well intentioned employers, particularly for technical areas on inadvertent noncompliance.”
He said that the fines and penalties in the Bill should reflect the severity of the breach and the capacity of the employer to pay, rather than applying a one-size-fits all approach.
“We strongly recommend that penalties under the Employment Relations Act be aligned with the severity of the offense and must clearly distinguish between serious violations.
“What we’re proposing here is, there’s still a lot more work that needs to be done in terms of the classifications of the penalties.
“Not just being introduced randomly and pulling out amounts from, you know, without reasonable justification of these amounts that are being introduced.”
Mr Nata said the government should avoid introducing laws that discourage entrepreneurship or push informal businesses further underground.
What we’re proposing here is, there’s still a lot more work that needs to be done in terms of the classifications of the penalties – Watisoni Nata
Tourism body warns of legal risks in new harassment rules
POTENTIAL legal risks in the new harassment provisions proposed under Section 75A of the Employment Relations (Amendment) Bill 2025 have been raised by the Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association.
Chief executive officer Fantasha Lockington told the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs that while the inclusion of harassment and sexual harassment definitions was welcomed, the clauses “lacked the necessary
clarity and practical guidance required for fair implementation”.
“We do acknowledge the attempt has been made to define sexual harassment in Section 75A(3); however, it does so without providing the detailed rules that implementing legislation must contain,” she said.
Ms Lockington said the new provisions were inconsistent with existing laws and risked exposing employers to “significant fines if a worker is found to have suffered harm, even though the employer’s action may have been justified”.
She warned that the “broad and undefined scope of harassment” could lead to “subjective claims” or misinterpretations of ordinary workplace behaviour.
Ms Lockington also questioned whether building owners could be held liable if incidents occurred on their premises and said the “reasonable steps” requirement unfairly penalised smaller businesses.
“Sexual harassment is sexual harassment; the size of the organisation should not matter.
“If an employer has provided policies, staff training, and safe working conditions, they should not be held liable for incidents beyond their control,” she said.
She called for the provisions to be revised to ensure fairness, alignment with ILO Convention C190, and clearer definitions of employer responsibilities and proof standards.
FHTA urges limits on worker strike rights
EMPLOYERS have raised concerns that the proposed Employment Relations Bill 2025 could grant workers an overly broad right to strike, potentially disrupting businesses and essential services.
Appearing before the parliamentary Standing Committee on Economic Affairs, Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association chief executive officer Fantasha Lockington said that current laws already allow strikes tied to collective bargaining, but the Bill extends the right beyond these boundaries.
She said that employers already recognise the fundamental right of workers to strike as a key mechanism to collective bargaining.
“However, it is essential to ensure that this right is appropriately limited to disputes arising from collective agreement negotiations,” Ms Lockington said.
“The new provisions in the Bill create a very broad framework that could allow strikes in situations below beyond collective bargaining, leading to unnecessary disruptions to businesses and the economy.
“As a consequence of this amendment, the right to strike in Fiji would be broader than currently allowed, even in New Zealand and Australia.”
She said that strikes in essential services could have serious consequences for public welfare.
“While the Act acknowledges this concern, more stringent conditions should be placed to ensure continuity of critical services.
“The right to strike must be balanced with the rights of businesses to operate effectively and the public’s access to essential services.”
Ms Lockington urged the Committee to limit strike rights strictly to collective bargaining disputes, to require mediation or arbitration before a strike, and to mandate secret ballots for worker participation.
“We would like to consider that the limit to strike only to be applied to disputes arising from collective bargaining to prevent unnecessary disruptions.
“The ERA (Employment Relations Act) should explicitly restrict strikes over issues already covered by agreement.
“So, we’re saying that if it’s in mediation, if it’s in arbitration, these should be exhausted first before a strike can be allowed to proceed.”
Ms Lockington said that while the right to strike must be allowed, government should “make sure that there’s a balance and how we allow that”.