Gov’t urges businesses to comply with labour code regarding retirement benefits
Government Information Service - Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 at 2:28 PM
The Department of Labour is reminding employers and employees that section 111 of the Labour Code, 2010 entitled, ‘Retirement Benefits’ is in effect and businesses are advised to comply.
As stated in subsection one of section 111, “An employer shall make provision for retirement benefits to be paid to his or her permanent employees by means of a pension scheme, an annuity, provident fund or other form of retirement scheme which may be contributory.”
The code further outlines the benefits to persons, employed by employers who do not provide a pension or retirement scheme, and have been employed with that employer for at least ten years and retires at age 65, or at an agreed retirement age, or earlier, due to ill-health.
Labour Commissioner Oleanvine Maynard in speaking with the Department of Information and Public Relations stated that, “The department of labour is expecting the cooperation of all concerned with the implementation of a pension plan for its employees.”
The commissioner added that, “This pension plan will provide a sense of security to those who have provided longstanding service to their place of employment and can now rely on some means of support in their golden age.”
The Department of Labour is also informing employers with existing retirement benefits schemes to provide such to the Labour Department. Copies of the Labour Code, 2010 can be purchased from the Civil Registry and Passport Office and both employers and employees are asked to obtain such for their benefit.
The Labour Code, 2010 serves as Government’s mechanism to address the Territory’s system of labour administration by prescribing minimum conditions of employment and facilitating an efficient management of the labour market.
Copyright 2013 BVI News, Alliance News Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
9 Comments
Disclaimer: BVI News and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the comments below or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, remove or edit user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any public forum. All comments posted on BVINews.com reflect the views and opinions of the commentators and not that of the management and staff. Click here for our full comment/user policy/ agreement.
Does this include house keepers etc
How about places like the Hospital and Solid Waste that have workers on work permit for fifteen, twenty and twenty five years. They can choose not to renew these workers employment just like that and the workers gets nothing after twenty plus years of hardwork and dedicated service.
The workers that treated me two decades ago when I was a baby are still not pensionable. But Police Officers are pensionable after a couple of years.
This is heartless and should be addressed.
@Ramateee, Why don’t you find out how much their gratuity payments are, then talk that.
Tantamount to a 6% pay increase will burden business, inflate prices and lead to lower employment.
The law provides for a mandatory retirement payment if an employer does not provide a scheme, but also states that a scheme is mandatory. Contradictory.
The scheme does not have to be contributory, ie pension contrubutions are robbed from salary. Given that the default mandatory payment no idiot would sign up for a non contributory scheme – thus creating probability that the employer offer a scheme no idiot would take up? Or does refusing the employers crap scheme void the otherwise mandatory payment?
The labour commissioner stated that work permit employee are not ‘permanent’ and thus not covered. It is a substantial cost and waste of time to establish pension benefits for transient workers. But what about 20+ years employees that are still on work permits?
The scheme does not have to be approved and can look like a duck.
This should have been carefully thought through as a seperate pensions act instead of a half baked burden on businesses cluttering up the Labour Code.
@Ill thought law, As a holder of a work permit, I was hopeful that my employer had to provide a pension plan scheme. Oh well, Back to saving cardboard boxes.
Is anyone familiar with the Labor Code section? Does the employer have to have a certain number of employees before they are required to provide retirement benefits?
My company doesn’t have a pension plan…….does Labour Department plan on doing something about this?
how much does a cpoy cost?
@public eye, Last time I heard $10.
Post a Comment