Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union
The supposed conclusion to the long-running Alexandra debacle appears to have caused more problems than it would have solved. Some might argue, and I am tempted to agree, that the resolution imposed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) has solved nothing. It would appear that the PSC attempted to settle the internecine warfare that was being waged for years by awarding neither side a victory.
The cowardly solution has resulted in over twenty teachers, including all but one of Alexandra’s management team, being transferred and scattered throughout the Teaching Service. It has proven to be unpopular with a majority of those involved in this unsightly mess. Also, it would appear that the PSC did not consider or paid blatant disregard to the harm their actions would be inflicting on the students who are about to take examinations. The teachers will get over the effects of the transfers with time; but the harm inflicted on the children is potentially devastating on those 4th, 5th and 6th form students whose future could very well be affected.
The harm to the education system and the children aside, the justice system in this country could be irreparably damaged by the fallout from the ill-advised actions of the PSC. The Waterman Commission made recommendations for limited transfers, but unfortunately, the PSC went overboard and transferred/punished most, if not all, of the teachers that appeared before the commission of inquiry as witnesses.
In our justice system, witnesses are only punished if they were found to have committed perjury. In this case, the geniuses that comprise the PSC have sought to punish not only the guilty but also the witnesses. We should not be surprised if people shy away from giving evidence at any other commission of inquiry or worse yet if they refuse to testify at criminal trials out of fear of repercussion from the precedents set in this case. Truthful witnesses before our courts and commissions should not be discouraged from giving evidence. That is not the way our justice system should work.
The PSC is well advised to undo the harm that has been inflicted before it takes root. Failing that this country will suffer long term for the ill-advised punitive transfer of teachers who did their civic duty by giving evidence.
Oh! By the way, members of the PSC, you can do this country a service by handing in your resignations: you have lost all credibility.
From the public comments by the various combatants it seems like both Broomes and the Teachers singing from the same song sheet to wit:
BU,
I should be pleased to comment on some of the issues which are being discussed here, although it is not prudent to be definitive in matters of law in the absence of documents to which I do not have and have not had access.
Transfers generally raise no legal difficulty, provided that they are done in a procedurally right way. There is, however, US jurisprudence to the effect that a transfer may be challenged on the grounds that it is retaliatory or vindictive, that it is discriminatory on some ground or that it targets a specific individual for punishment. Of course, the snag in all this is proof of that intention in the transferor, but once this is established, then a transfer may be annulled.
I have not had sight of the employment contracts of Mr Broomes or the teachers involved, but much will turn on these. Does Mr Broomes have a constitutional right to remain at Alexandra’s? Was he transferred purely on the basis of the Commission’s report? If either of these is so or can be proved to be so, then there may be an argument for litigation.
So far as the argument between Caswell and Observing re the assignment of duties to teachers is concerned, I would need to know the wording of the contracts in question, but my contract at UWI also allows the Dean of the Faculty to assign me to teach any subject in the Faculty in his discretion, even though I was appointed primarily for my expertise in contract and torts. Of course, the Dean would not appoint me to teach a subject if I protested, but if he insisted and I refused, I would be in breach of the terms of my contract!
Then again, why practically as a matter of industrial relations, would there be an insistence by a Dean in such circumstances and not consultation? Only the students would suffer. But, as a matter of law, I am bound to teach a subject as he directs. Here, In Bush Tea’s sentiments, industrial relations and law are indeed poles apart.
With regard to Ms Redman’s thesis that shop stewards are not transferable, this is not accurate as a general statement. The ILO Convention #135 protects shop stewards against adverse or prejudicial action “because of their status, trade union membership or activity” only and there is also protection against anti-union discrimination, but the BSTU would first have to establish that the transfer is prejudicial either to the BSTU or to the teacher, and then that it was based on their trade union activity. This is not easy, but possible nevertheless. A shop steward may be dismissed for misconduct, for example, but the Union would of course argue that it was for a different reason.
Finally, my column in the Sunday Advocate tomorrow deals with this matter, but there I will argue that both the Cabinet and the PSC were stuck between a rock and a hard place in their respective decisions to set up the Commission and to make the transfers in the manner done.
“The ILO Convention #135 protects shop stewards against adverse or prejudicial action “because of their status, trade union membership or activity” only and there is also protection against anti-union discrimination…”
Does this rule apply to redundancy as well?
@Enuff,
Redundancy is effected by a dismissal essentially because of the disappearance of a job. Normally, the shop steward is not one of the first selected for redundancy because of the IR implications. But if it is necessary, and there is the requisite consultation with the union, then it is OK.
With regard to Jeff’s intervention, for which BU is grateful, the quote above brings in to question the quality of legal advise which the BSTU is receiving. Perhaps BU is being too harsh?
Now here comes this “peabrain” political operative miller ranting and raving “the sky is falling” a modern day “chicken little” while at the same time forgetting that a visionless BLP govt sat around and did nothing about the AX. now one must believe that mess left behind from the BLP must be forgotten.
@Jeff
At the risk of being repetitive and in hindsight, couldn’t the same action to transfer teachers and principal have been taken on the basis of the Inspection Report? The assumption on BU’s part is that the COI Report was NOT used as the basis for the recent transfers BUT precipitated the action.
When all is said and done the law courts is where resolution to this saga will be found.Another wash pan of money wasted on another commission of inquiry,and poor public workers still waiting for their pay,in some cases since last August.Just how much does it take to ignite the flames of passion in a peaceful people?The connected few continue to play Russian Roulette with the lives of many,seemingly oblivious to the fact that a people can only take so much before it becomes enough.I do not support anarchy,but where fair play is lacking who knows?
@islandgal
Thanks islandgal! I can’t remember ever tasting your hand before.
@TTP
Wait, you want me join your legal fraternity? Who tell you I ain’t a garbage collector that spends time reading the many books and documents that people throw away
@all
Legal implications –
The transfers are legal from PAD under authority of the Governor General. Only them under him can reverse the decision. As TTP says, only three people have a legitimate legal challenge “at this time.”
Political implications -
Redman and co. abandoned reasonable IR process last year and adopted the gully boar route. They must now accept what comes. If the government buckles first in this new standoff, they will look weak and lose even more at the polls. Just Asking would love that. Lol
@jeff
Man thanks for the intervention man. Timely and relevant. Finally I get a lawyer to agree with this garbage collector.
Just Observing
@ Jeff
Interesting because a shop steward was made redundant as part of this government’s restructuring while less qualified and experienced individuals in the same post kept their jobs.
I agree with you, David. But how old was that report? In these matters one must act promptly. Moreover, was that report compiled with due process?
@Enuff
I did not know that, of course. But it is not a personal statutory right that he has, rather it is a collective international right of the union to protest this act of anti-union discrimination, if indeed it was that. It might have been OK with them after discussion. I do not know.
@Jeff
Because of negligence at the MOE we had to spend 600k?
Even if we challenge the Inspection Report on the basis of deficient due process there were some knowns at AX which the MOE, CPO, PSC should have acted on the basis of investigation by the Chief Education Officer and cohorts.i.e.Greaves not teaching, Roger Broomes and his indiscretions, the breakdown in relationship between the governing body and the chairman; a rep from the MOE sat on the Board for godsakes!
The problem is that they are all ‘intimate’ with each other. And to think with chaos at AX Jeff Broomes was emboldened to apply for the job of Chief Education officer as was his right we hasten to add.
Yes, David. Some in public administration fell asleep or looked away while at the wheel. Next week, perhaps,we shall read the accident report.
I have to go offline for a while. I shall be back later this evening.
@David
you dont seem to understand some of the principles involved. You beliveve that i dont understand what i am talking about. Jeff ha and oberving have concurred on the issue of transfer. I know what i speak about.
David i can take u on on administrative law anytime. Mary does not understand what she speaks about except for those teachers who might have an air-tight case , the others dont and they have to report for duty on Monday. They do not employ themselves. You turn up for work but let the authroty know u r doing so under protest.
By the way, i can write as eloquent as anyone here, if i wandt to. I understand what i speak about and speak from a postion of knowlede and experience, and bt the way i have case stuidies to reference.
As I said before, Ms. Redman has lost the pr battle. She started wrong so she must end wron and yes, i dont have any sympathy for her. By the way her first meeting with Mr. Broomes on the Ax issue was one of hotility and disrespect.
@Caswell
a glad u get a message to mr. jprdan to offer an apology to the ministry in writing. these people need to know the rules. the journalists want story. He must remember that pesion is not a right..
@To The Point
Unlike you Jeff was quick to preface his comment with a conditionality. This is the problem with us nowadays every body right.
Hi Observing(…)
Yesterday I watched or should I say read, as you batted away all that was bowled at you with the aplomb and delicate touch of Lawrence Rowe executing a leg glance.
What a way to start the New Year!!!
@ David
Jeff was also at pains to point out that Law and rights are NOT always the “end-all” when Industrial Relations are at play. No matter how legally wrong Mary is, if she manages to win the sympathy of the various publics and the loyalty of her membership, all those with “law and rights” will see which God they serving.
“loyalty and sympathy” tends to hinge on what SEEMS FAIR AND REASONABLE to the public as opposed to what is technically law.
Another area where the FEELINGS of the majority ofter can outweigh the Law is in the Co-operative movement…. The final law is often what the majority of members FEEL they want.
In these matters therefore, a lot hinges on who is best able to articulate a credible, fair, transparent and reasonable message.
…..FS is running out of time.
@TTP
I’m glad you said “might” have an air tight case. I’m reviewing some things now and if what I’m gleaning is correct that air tight case may have a hole or two.
Caswell & Mary (sounds like a movie) may have some disappointments coming.
@check it out and all
If the PM chose the LEGAL route of a Commission of Inquiry rather than judging, deciding and acting, what makes anyone think that he will now in 2013 promote overturning a LEGAL directive in favour of an emotional/organisational one? Especially if on the cusp of an election it would make him appear weak, uncertain and not in control?
More popcorn please!!!!
Just Observing
To the point;
Looks like you are of the same persuasion or vintage as Justice Waterman. “these people” indeed! Threats may work in this instance but the unfairness will rankle, not just in Mr. Jordan but in many others who can see the inequalities in this society.
Beware, that attitude can reap the whirlwind.
Observing; I wonder if the story that has been going the rounds for the last 2 or so days is true. The story I heard was that the PM did not know the overall structure and mechanisms for the implementation of the transfer and only heard of it after it was published in the press. It came from staunch DLP supporters.
It therefore seems that some DLP supporters were being fed that pap to explain the deficiencies in the transfers. I wonder if they realised what such a situation would say about the PM and his degree of control of his Ministry and Ministers. But I agree with your conclusion in your last sentence above. Any emotive / organizational action now could indeed make him appear weak, uncertain and not in control. But, not to belabour the point, he already appears to have those characteristics.
@yardbroom
Thanks! All in the service of and under the great tutelage the BU family!
@bushie
You really think Miss Redman can articulate a credible, fair and reasonable argument? You think she ehas the PR skills to navigate this and win public sympathy?
Was it FAIR and REASONABLE to down tools, dun work and insist that Broomes be moved and nothing else would suffice? Trust me, Redman got a lot of challenging days ahead.
Remember a man named Didacus Jules? He has a Phd in Redmanomics.
@check it out
The dlp has a chance (again) to show that they can handle a “crisis.”. How they do will determine everything.
Islandgal! How de wings coming?
Observing
What fun and games. I am truly enjoying this blog. Nothing has held my attention as much since the Kingsland court affair. My housework suffering. cant keep away from the laptop. Thanks David for this forum. thanks to BFP too for banning me. he, he, he.
The Advocate has a fairly decent report:
Mr Cecil Aurelius Smith won his case against the government of barbados because he was able to prove infringement of his rights guaranteed under sections 21(1) and 49 of the Constitution of Barbados. In a nutshell,Section 21 refers to the right of individuals or groups to reject relationships forced on him against his will and section 49 refers to the unauthorised use of power by Parliament to make apointments to the public service.
In the Alexandra school continuing debacle, teachers appointed before 1983 and transferred without their consent can seek redress redress by virtue of Section 65 of the Education Act 1981 which says that
.651. (1) Where teachers who, immediately before 1st January, 1983
were employed by Governing Bodies, become public officers they shall
continue to be employed on terms and conditions that are as favourable
as or no less favourable than those on which they were employed
before 31st May, 1983.
(2) Teachers referred to in subsection (1) may not, without their
consent in writing, be transferred from the school to which they were
appointed before 1st January, 1983; but may at their request be
transferred to another school.
Section 65 of the Act came into operation on the 31st May, 1983.
I wonder in whose interest such a law was promulgated.
Does this apparent anomaly apply to the initial transfer from the school of appointment prior to 1983 or all other subsequent transfers.
Does M broome has any recourse under section 65?
http://widget.newsinc.com/fullplayerwvars.html?wid=4960&cid=10437&spid=24163306&freewheel=90640&sitesection=nationnewslocal
.Observing….Ist batch gone , 2nd batch in de oven. LOL We gots more drama unfolding so am staying tuned. Tomorrow tomorrow is just a day away!
Well Well | January 6, 2013 at 9:11 AM |
Waiting to hear when another foreign entity will acquire Barbados Water Authority, National Insurance, Barbados Credit Union, CBC (definitely) National Housing, Ministry of Education, Internal Revenue (definitely, since everyone uses it as their personal piggy bank to steal millions) and other government ministries, as well as BLP, DLP …………………………………..all in an effort to save the people from themselves.Authority, National Insurance, Barbados Credit Union, CBC (definitely) National Housing, Ministry of Education, Internal Revenue (definitely, since everyone uses it as their personal piggy bank to steal millions) and other government ministries, as well as BLP, DLP …………………………………..all in an effort to save the people from themselves.
@ David .
Judging from some of the illogic coming from the BSTU do you really think that they are acting on legal advice ? I know that the lawyer who has been representing them is not an irrational person . We shall see how this matter unfolds .
@Just Looking on
Bloodied by a decade of battle on the battlefield at AX it does not seem as if General Redman is ready to cloak herself in a strategy of retreat or surrender. It matters not that there continues to be heavy collateral damage (students). It is unlikely the BSTU is following Hal Gollop’s advice. It which case the BSTU should be encouraged to acquire another military attache.
@david
Well said.
Checkmate is coming soon. The only question is if the queen will acknowledge the defeat and allow her king to lay down or how many pieces she is willing to sacrifice in a game already lost.
Stay tuned
Just observing.
Given all the legal twist and turns and intrepretations maybe she sees a cloud with a silver lining. however her interference and what she said was unjust did stopped three of the transfers for time being.
ac | January 6, 2013 at 4:02 PM |
“Given all the legal twist and turns and intrepretations maybe she sees a cloud with a silver lining. however her interference and what she said was unjust did stopped three of the transfers for time being.”
have been scrutinising section 65 of the education act and am of the view that if the appropriate lawyers nitpick they might be able to raise issues concerning the interpretation of the use of the word MAY in relation to the definitive rights of teachers.. does section 65 really give teachers claiming refuge under this section and the memorandum of understanding the right to refuse to be transferred.
only observing and asking.
Great items from you, man. I have be mindful your stuff previous to and you are simply extremely wonderful.
I really like what you have bought here, certainly like what
you are saying and the way in which by which you are saying it.
You are making it enjoyable and you continue
to take care of to stay it sensible. I can not wait to
read far more from you. This is really a tremendous site.