6 days ago
5
After more than a decade of discussion, review and national consultation, the Occupational Safety and Health Bill returned to the Senate in Belmopan. Senator for Government Business Eamon Courtenay presented the legislation, explaining that the document now before the Senate is substantially different from earlier versions. According to Courtenay, more than a dozen amendments have been made in response to the issues raised during the legislative process. Lead Opposition Senator Patrick Faber also rose to address the bill. His remarks focused largely on the extensive consultation surrounding the legislation rather than its substantive provisions. In a light-hearted acknowledgment of the Government’s approach, Faber joked that he was not accustomed to receiving that level of consultation from the current administration.
Patrick Faber, Opposition Senator: “But by the time it reached the Senate, Madam President, it had been long recognized that there were many issues and in fact it is not only the senators that sounded the alarm on this bill. There were others who sounded the alarm and to the credit of the government they yielded and they listened but I will show you how that went wrong at certain points and I’m raising it simply because I would hope that the kind of mistakes that were made can simply not or will not happen again. And to us, because I have consulted and discussed this matter with other senators, in fact I’ve raised it, and everybody who is concerned I would want to say if it’s not the case they will correct me, that even the members of the government side felt insulted by those public servants saying to listen don’t bother call the meeting because nothing will happen because we don’t have any answers for you guys. But again to the credit of the government and I don’t know if it was you my friend the leader of the opposition, of government business maybe I’m being prophetic. You won’t stay around if that is the case, no? I meant in the Senate man, a position you’ve held before. I know you’re not going into an electoral politics, I’m certain of that. If that ever happens…”
Sheena Pitts, Senator: “Then the heavens fall.”
Patrick Faber, Opposition Senator: “But we saw that it came back, That was exactly what needed to happen. And I will tell you, I did not have the luxury, ‘cause it seems to have been a luxury to have attended that session that was held on July 15th, I think it was, where further consultation on this bill was done, it was called an information session. And colleagues were allowed to further state their concerns. In fact, to be fair to the chair, when the, and the clerk sorry the chair and the clerk, when the second session that was promised to us was cancelled an indication was made that we could write in our concerns, which is not the same as having the technical people sitting here and being able to answer our questions on concerns, but they did say, you know you could write in. So when the luxury came of having the July 15th information session I think colleagues of all persuasions welcomed the opportunity.”
Private Sector Senator Kevin Herrera also welcomed the progress made but raised concerns regarding Section 65, which addresses the action that may be taken when provisions of the legislation are infringed. Herrera sought greater clarity on how enforcement would operate and the possible consequences for employers. He also joined the discussion surrounding domestic workers and how they would be treated under the proposed law.
Kevin Herrera, Senator: “And then on the section 64 and 65, Madam President, clear statutory timelines for inspection and reopening. Section 64 gives Chief Inspector Authority to issue immediate closure notices where imminent danger exists. While emergency intervention is necessary to prevent injury, section 65 locks clear post closure timelines once the employer remedies the issue. If a business takes immediate corrective action to make its workplace safe it should not remain closed indefinitely waiting for an inspector to return. Every day of delay means lost revenues for the employer and lost wages for the workers. We call for statutory timelines that compel the inspector to re-inspect a workplace within a prescribed timeframe following notification that remedial work is complete and render a formal determination on lifting the closure notice without delay. And of course as we can appreciate here, Madam President, is that we don’t want to have businesses close indefinitely or unreasonably long. Because it hurts both the business, the company, and the worker. And I’m sure it’s not the intention of the bill to create that type of onerous situation. Enforcement protections and privacy rights for domestic workers under section three, Madam President, extends the protection of this act to domestic workers. Subject to future regulations regarding constitutional privacy rights within private residences and I think that Senator Faber has raised this issue on domestic workers a number of times in these sessions as I can remember. We recommend the inclusion of domestic workers, however, leaving enforcement framework entirely to future unspecified regulations creates legal uncertainty for households and domestic workers alike. The draft is silent on entry warrants, resident consent, the rights of household members who are not the employer, and how broad section 10 powers apply inside a private home. Without clear guidelines, we risk creating a rights conflict that leads directly to constitutional challenges. We recommend that the regulations governing domestic workers safety be drafted concurrently with this legislation, explicitly addressing notice and consent procedures for entering private residences, alternative compliance mechanisms such as off-site interviews or documentation reviews, and clear boundary definitions balancing workplace safety with a constitutional right to privacy in one’s home.”
The Occupational Safety and Health Bill has travelled a long legislative road. Its origins date back to at least 2011, when an early version was presented to Cabinet. The legislation was subsequently introduced in the House of Representatives in January 2014 and referred to the relevant House committee for nationwide consultation. However, that version never returned for a second reading and eventually lapsed. In the years that followed, the National Trade Union Congress of Belize continued campaigning for its return, while the Belize Chamber of Commerce and Industry sought amendments to balance worker protection with the practical responsibilities placed on employers. The process was revived in 2022, and consultations intensified during November and December 2023. An OSH working group involving representatives of the unions, business community, Social Security Board and relevant government ministries reviewed the proposal and submitted recommended changes. Cabinet approved the proposed amendments in early 2024, after which the Ministry of Labour and the Attorney General’s Ministry worked to produce a modern and comprehensive draft with technical support from the International Labour Organization. The revised Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in June 2025 by Labour Minister Florencio Marin Junior. It later secured passage in the House in February of this year before moving to the Senate. The Senate paused its consideration in April after additional concerns were raised, including questions surrounding coverage for domestic workers. Debate was deferred again in June to permit further technical review and written responses. The Government has now returned the legislation to the Senate after incorporating more than a dozen amendments with the intention to replace the outdated Factories Act and extend legal protection beyond traditional industrial workplaces.
English (US) ·