THE Employment Relations (Amendment) Bill No. 27 of 2025 shows significant progress from earlier drafts.
Improvements such as refined legal drafting, removal of absolute liability clauses, and reductions in excessive penalties are positive steps that enhance employer accountability without imposing undue burdens.
However, critical gaps remain.
In their presentation to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economic Affairs, the Fiji Commerce & Employers Federation (FCEF) highlighted 13 areas of concern, including gaps in alignment with the National Development Plan, the ongoing skills and labour shortage, and limited attention to modern labour practices, productivity and inclusion.
FCEF supports modernising employment legislation in line with international standards but emphasised that reform must be evidence-based, grounded in business realities and fair to both employers and workers.
With 190 proposed amendments across 266 clauses, careful scrutiny is essential to avoid inconsistencies or unintended consequences.
“We need reforms that reflect our workforce and economic realities—ones that enable businesses to remain competitive while protecting and empowering workers,” FCEF chief executive officer Edward Bernard said.
Fiji must actively engage in the public hearings running from October 14 to November 12 to ensure the Bill reflects the realities of the modern workforce, economic factors and the business climate.
The following are key issues raised at the standing committee:
1. Criminalisation of Contract Breaches – The introduction of criminal penalties for employment contract breaches, that are traditionally addressed as civil matters, risks penalising administrative or procedural errors rather than deliberate wrongdoing. Employment matters should primarily be addressed through civil procedures rather than criminal sanctions, except in cases of objectively determined serious misconduct or exploitation. The current Employment Grievance process already provides a sufficient framework for both employers and employees.
2. Excessive Fines – While we acknowledge the review of the originally high maximum penalties, the proposed penalties remain disproportionately high and fail to differentiate between severe offences and minor breaches, potentially burdening smaller businesses. Fines under the Employment Relations Act should be proportionate to the severity of the offence with clear definitions of what constitutes a “reasonable excuse.”
3. The Removal of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, through the introduction of Form 9 – The introduction of Form 9 enables breaches of employment law to be ‘fast tracked’ directly to court, effectively bypassing the established Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism. There is adequate Government data and ministerial statements to justify that ADR works for both employers, workers, and Government. The ADR process should be retained, and strengthened as the preferred and most efficient means of resolving employment disputes.
4. Excessive Powers of Labour Officers in Section 19A – Section 19A grants labour officers broad powers to enter premises, inspect, and seize property without warrants. This is a grave concern as these ‘new’ powers, together with a range of new offences, create a climate for corruption to thrive. Labour offices should be subjected to the same limitations as other law enforcement arms of government and clear guidelines and accountability measures put in place.
5. Harassment Provisions (Section 75A (3)) – While the inclusion of workplace harassment protections is commendable, the definitions and scope are broad, and is inconsistent with the harassment legislation in the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission Act. The broad and undefined scope of harassment—which includes verbal, physical and visual harassment—also raises concerns about how subjective claims will be assessed and whether normal workplace interactions could be misinterpreted as unlawful behaviour. Harassment provisions need to be based on existing national laws and ILO Convention C190, and should therefore be clarified to ensure practical application, clear employer obligations and fair procedural standards for all parties.
6. Wage Theft Provisions (Section 43A) – The proposed “wage theft” provision imposes broad liability and severe penalties even for unintentional errors in wage administration. The definition of wage theft remains unclear and the excessive level of the maximum penalty assumes that an offence will always involve a large volume of wages when almost all cases will involve multiple offences of small amounts each of which will be a separate offence. A fair process for investigating wage disputes must be included, and definitions be refined to distinguish deliberate non-payment from administrative mistakes, allowing reasonable opportunities for correction before penalties are imposed.
7. The Right to Strike (Section 174 – 184) – The new provisions in the Bill create a broad framework that could allow strikes in situations beyond collective bargaining, leading to unnecessary disruptions to businesses and the economy. It is essential to ensure that this right is appropriately limited to disputes arising from collective agreement negotiations. The legislation should clearly limit the right to strike to cases where negotiations for a collective agreement have failed despite good faith bargaining, and restrict strikes over issues already covered by agreements. All mediation and arbitration options must be exhausted before a strike can proceed.
8. Individual Contracts vs Collective Agreements (Section 166B) – The requirement for employers to offer new employees a choice between individual or collective contracts imposes obligations on employers that are neither justified nor practical, and risks destabilising a system that has served both workers and businesses well. The current framework should be maintained, allowing individual contracts to remain the standard employment arrangement while collective agreements apply to union members.
9. Unfair Dismissal Provisions (Section 35A) – The expanded definitions of unfair dismissal, such as “unreasonable” or “unjust,” create uncertainty for both employers and employees. The law should establish clear, reasonable parameters for unfair dismissal claims including minimum service periods, recognition of genuine redundancies, reasonable compensation limits and clear procedural fairness standards.
10. Bargaining Fee Clause (Section 130A) – The proposal to require non-union members to pay a bargaining fee to unions undermines freedom of association and imposes additional administrative burdens. The fee itself—equivalent to six months’ union dues—is excessive and arbitrary. It imposes an unwarranted financial burden on workers. While unions have a legitimate role in collective bargaining, participation must remain voluntary. The bargaining fee provision should be removed to uphold the principles of fairness, freedom of choice, and individual negotiation rights.
11. Joining a Union (Section 6 (5)) – The amendment requiring workers to “must voluntarily join a trade union” contradicts the constitutional right to freedom of association and it does not make sense. It cannot be ‘must’ and ‘voluntary’; they are contradicting terms and should be revised to correctly reflect that a worker is provided a truly voluntary option that is grammatically correct.
12. Non-Compete Clause (Section 22 (5)) – Non-compete agreements are not inherently exploitative—they are strategic tools used to protect commercially sensitive information, intellectual property, and client relationships. The blanket invalidation of non-compete agreements is a deeply flawed provision that disregards legitimate business protections, undermines fair competition and threatens investment in workforce development. The existing common law framework is sufficient to prevent abuse. However, if legislation is deemed necessary, it must not impose a blanket ban. Instead, it should codify the enforceability of non-compete clauses that meet clear reasonableness criteria—protecting both worker mobility and legitimate business.
13. Productivity and Cost Implications – The Bill does not sufficiently address Fiji’s productivity challenges or align with the National Development Plan’s goal of sustainable, private sector–driven growth. While the Fiji National Productivity Master Plan targets annual productivity growth of 3.2per cent, new provisions in the Bill—such as increased annual leave from 10 to 12 days, additional family care leave, extended maternity entitlements, and double pay plus an extra day off for public holidays—add significant labour costs without improving efficiency. These measures could collectively result in up to 27 days of annual leave, or over 100 days for female workers taking extended maternity leave, potentially reducing workforce availability and productivity. Sections 76, 59, 68A, and 104 of the Bill must be reviewed or removed to avoid unintended economic impacts, and that practical measures—such as limited sick leave without medical certificates and reduced pre-leave work requirements—be introduced to improve attendance and support both worker welfare and business continuity.
Time to play your part
From October 13 to November 12, 2025, public hearings will provide the final window for input. FCEF has launched phase two of its advocacy and lobbying campaign, partnering with chambers of commerce, business councils and regional associations to host information sessions to help members submit detailed feedback.
“This is the last chance to shape Fiji’s workplaces for the next decade,” Mr Bernard said.
“We urge all employers and private sector leaders to engage fully. This is a critical opportunity to shape legislation that impacts how we work, employ and grow as a nation.”
FCEF’s MSME Council and Women Entrepreneurs & Business Council will also submit their perspectives on October 20 to ensure the voices of small businesses and women entrepreneurs are heard.
FCEF calls for collaboration among employers, workers, and government to build a labour framework that is both fair and functional.
“Good labour law must protect workers while enabling employers to thrive,” Mr Bernard said.
“Fiji’s future depends on our ability to strike that balance together.”
FCEF board member Deepak Rathod, right, chats with member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economic Affairs Semi Koroilavesau after FCEF’s in-person submission to the committee on Monday. Picture: SUPPLIED
