@ac re gag orders
you missed one of amused’s points…
The COI was public .

you also missed one of David’s points…

unions and persons entrusted with responsibility and power such as this have a duty to operate in a manner befitting the good people they serve and the good electorate that are 600K poorer. if files printed on soiled paper can fly off a moving vehicle and land on a BU sidewalk then that should encourage drivers of moving vehicles to always drive properly as they should do in the first place.

The truth (or at least a damned good airtight fabrication of it) will set you free!!! No need to fear.

@ac | September 12, 2012 at 8:26 PM. “never once did i ever infer that broomes does not deserve the best and yes the most aggressive counsel necessary. however when the BSTU does similiar all hell breaks loose by those who is supporting Broomes. and a kangroo court is set up here on BU by some of his counsel outside of my opinions i will wager a bet that no lawyer have contacted BU or any BSTU officer has asked any special privilege of presenting the teachers side through articles on BU but that shows the difference in the bstu and their professionalism , can’t say the same for broomes counsel”

I agree, ac, SHOCKING! Truly unfair. DISGRACEFUL! Let me break it down so that everyone knows how unfaired you and BSTU have been.

1. “…..never once did i ever infer that broomes does not deserve the best and yes the most aggressive counsel necessary. however when the BSTU does similiar all hell breaks loose by those who is supporting Broomes.” It is admitted that yours and your friends’ incessant anti-Broomes, pro-perjurous-old-hen-brigade harangue was not as effective as that of BU family members who came to the issue without preconception and prepared to rely on the evidence as it unfolded. Very unfair, I admit. One should always go in with an agenda and stick to it, no matter how fallacious it is shown to be.

2. “and a kangroo court is set up here on BU by some of his counsel outside of my opinions i will wager a bet that no lawyer have contacted BU or any BSTU officer has asked any special privilege of presenting the teachers side through articles on BU but that shows the difference in the bstu and their professionalism , can’t say the same for broomes counsel”. Three major bits of unfairness here:

(A) The BU Kangaroo Court requested input and information from all, regardless of agenda and bias, and it did not moderate the comments nor declare a position – it merely provided the forum for differing views and the airing of evidence. But, it was very unfair that Broomes did not rely on the Nation to accurately and fairly report his side of things – after all, we all know the Nation to be a paragon of probity, fairness and truth. Don’t we?

(B) As the COI was a public forum and not a court, no claim of sub judice or disrespect to the court could apply and it has to be pointed out that this was massively unfair as it allowed Broomes’ counsel to shine the public spotlight on matters that theretofore had been rampant rumour and innuendo and thus the BSTU was most unfairly deprived of one of its main and favourite tools…….GOSSIP!!!!;

(C) You ASSUME that Broomes’ counsel have taken up BU on its highly deplorable offer to air a public matter publicly, eschewing the gossip and innuendo tactic. And I can understand that you would wish to revert to gossip by suggesting, without foundation, that Broomes’ counsel has taken the matter to BU. I won’t embarrass you by asking for your hard evidence of this as it is not relevant (and you don’t have it anyway) but instead refer to the advice given you by Observing as, if they did, which is not admitted, it is really unfair to you and BSTU, but neither improper nor illegal.

@Observing (…) | September 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM. Beautifully put. But I would expect no less. Also loved your last comment and the way you phrased it. I missed Barbados Today. Will try to get that page. Maybe David could post a link. Am I correct in saying that the editor of Barbados Today declared a conflict of interest on the side of the BSTU? If so, then the conduct of his newspaper has been worthy of praise. Time that the Government, the Courts and all other advertisers cancelled their contracts with the Nation and handed them to Barbados Today.

@Gabriel Tackle | September 12, 2012 at 9:51 PM | May I, with great respect, state that your comment is too general and you need to specifically identify the unions that will ruin the country, starting with the BSTU. I say that because there are many fine trade unionists in Barbados who, while fighting for the rights of their members, first have a care to the country itself and its well-being. They are forward-thinking and realistic and pragmatic people. Therefore, like with lawyers, we need to not condemn them all, because of the actions and failings of some. To be even more specific, the conduct of the NUPW in this AX matter has been exemplary, would you not agree?

No observing i recalled earlier in the inquiry that when all and sundry was commenting amused pulled out his bully whip and tried to whip those into submission as he implied that evedience given and received was similar to that of a court oflaw and people should refrain from giving opinions until all the evedience was presented .the key words “court of law” any how i wont quibble over that since at that time i knew better.but my point remains as to the lack of professionalism by broomes legal operatives

Back to the hastily arranged meeting post – COI. The Barbados Today article suggests the MOE/CEO has not responded to BSTU’s letter. What would King respond to say except to acknowledge receipt?

@observing there professIonlism or lack therof who be determined by findings from The COI and in no way is the same applied for the blantant disregard and rule of law which lawyers in the legal profession are aworn to abide by. even given that the COI is nota court of law lawyers are guided by rules and boundaries are set to avoid interfernce and it obvious that broomes counsel has overstepped those bounds acting through their legal operatives

@Sargeant
“The age of “my way or the highway” is a relic ”

But Sargeant, isn’t this exactly the attitide of the BSTU? As we have seen from recent events, there are Muslim fundamentalists who are bent on threatening the whole world if they don’t get their way. On a more minute scale, is not the BSTU taking the same attitude?

Well Yardbroom it wouldn,t be nice of me to reveal my sources or would it?

Hi ac
It would not; I accept in good faith.

The fact is, and BU is in a position to speak with authority on this matter, comments have been posted by actors from all sides of this issue,,,period.

ac is clueless on this matter.

Only BU can speak to our sources.

Only BU can speak to our sources.
ac
as in straight from the horses mouth.

I rest my case.

@ Hants
To close the saga pro tempore can you state the names of the two transferred teachers and the schools to which transferred?Secondly,the names of the two retirees?

T-minus one day and counting!

Remember David that this young lady is Broomes’ cousin’s girlfriend.

Interesting days ahead 🙂

Just observing

The following appears on the BSTU website. The language makes one wonder:

The Barbados Secondary Teachers’ Union has instructed (not ordered) its members of staff at the Alexandra School to resume teaching duties with immediate effect. The Union will have written all the agents of the employer superior to the Principal advising them of this decision and indicating a stated expectation that all those agents will act so as to ensure there is no victimization, recrimination or other form of work place abuse, so that the teachers can perform their professional obligations in an environment conducive to teaching and learning. The Union’s letter also cautions that if there are any lapses in the practices required by the Government, as the model employer in labour management relations, then these will be met by an appropriate response. The Union wishes to make it abundantly clear, given its professional and trade union obligations, that its decision has been made entirely in the context of all that is implicit in the public announcement by the Prime Minister to the setting up of a Commission of Enquiry into all matters at the Alexandra School. Most important of these is the expectation, in keeping with what has been best practice and following our discussion, that the Principal of that institution will be sent on leave with full pay when the warrant establishing said Commission is issued. The union shall expect therefore that the agents of the employer will prepare in advance for this. We have made this decision to return, notwithstanding the absence of certain specific and relevant details in relation to a time-frame, from a position of trust in the office of the Prime Minister and with the assurance that he will act in the best interest of that statement of policy and of this country. The resumption of work is therefore being undertaken by this trade union, yet gain, as an act of good faith in the negotiating exercise.

The Union’s membership at Alexandra is conscious of its professional commitments to students, their parents and to the school itself, a fact which was publicly recognized, on more than one occasion, by the Prime Minister. This, along with a known increase of pressure on both students and parents alike in this examination term, has also played a major role in our decision. The industrial action taken by the Union was not intended to, in anyway disadvantage the school, but to bring sobriety and sanity out of the existing irreparably fractured situation that causes pain and suffering to those there. The Union abhors the time which has been permitted to elapse before any definitive attempt has been made to address the serious problems at the school. We are fully satisfied that senior public officers and successive Public Service Commissions, responsible individually and collectively in law for the administration of employment practices at the Alexandra School, including the industrial relations aspect, have for years allowed an untenable situation first to develop and then to fester. This has occurred under successive political administrations. Nothing that the Union has done has been driven by party-political politics and we have no intention of being drawn into any party political debate and divide. The Union offers the assurance that it proposes to cooperate fully with the process of enquiry and reposes confidence in that process. We fully expect that Commission both to vindicate the teachers and to produce recommendations for the Cabinet which we expect to be enacted with the priority that has previously NOT been given to the importance of the teaching/learning environment that the teachers there have always known should exist. Moreover, as expected in such matters the Union shall respect the circumstances and shall seek to keep out of the limelight on that aspect of the issue. We are expecting that similar instruction will be given to the Principal by his employers. The members of the BSTU have, without prejudice, resumed work today, and we hereby clarify that some of our members had been released, since last week, to undertake CXC oral examinations and other duties.Regrettably, when we did this earlier it did NOT mean that the Principal would discontinue acts of discrimination, mismanagement and workplace abuse. The teachers will however continue to work professionally while awaiting the expeditious establishment of the Commission of Inquiry. In these specific circumstances, the Prime Minister has publicly recognized the difficult environment in which they work and has validated their several complaints about it. The Union is therefore expecting that the PM will, with haste, provide substance to the generalities of his policy statement to this Union and the nation.
http://www.bstu.org/bstu_page7.html

I wonder if the PM will read the report or will it be stolen?

Trade unions will have to be brought under control.Teachers,transport board,disciplined services,hospital,airport and seaport staff and all those essential services must have minimum standards to meet before labour can be withdrawn.The populace must be protected from union power.It’s too big,too loose,too evasive and must be brought under control by an Industrial Act.No union will like it; there must be central control by the elected government

@David
@ Checkit-Out | September 21, 2012 at 10:38 PM

“Instructed” and “ordered” in this context both mean the same thing and, with respect, I certainly don’t need Casewell (or anyone else) to rule on that for me. The word this illiterate union was looking for and should have used (and there is a choice) was “requested” or “advised”. But why should they, representing as they do teachers of our young, bother to get something as mundane as language right.

I have long thought that the report from the COI was written (or at least drafted) even before the COI was convened. It seemed to me that in the course of the hearing, every effort was made by the Commissioner and the Fourth Estate to follow a pre-determined course leading to a pre-determined outcome.

It seemed to me that “spin doctors” had been involved to deal with the now critical threat of the blogs. Not the best or even professional spin doctors, of course, because officialdom still clings desperately to the myth that the blogs don’t matter and no one reads them. But this blog has been widely read and discussed by all, as it has produced documents and information carefully edited out of the newspaper reports……explosive documents and information. And only a group of people so far removed from reality that they exist in a world of fantasy could possibly imagine that the average Bajan’s instinct towards gossip has gone dormant on this issue.

Therefore, citing 3 days of holiday as the excuse, the report was delayed for 21 days. If government had wanted a believable excuse, it would have made more sense to say that the Commissioner was accustomed to the judicial delay and sloth of the bench he has so recently retired from and needed to get up to speed on how things are managed in the real world. They might even have said that the evidence was unexpected and needed more careful scrutiny before a report could be formulated. OR, the likely truth – that the report already drafted would no longer do the job and they had to re-write. But, with typical Barbados-governmental disdain for the electorate that put them into office, the government cited three days of holiday.

And I agree with David and would be most interested to know why this report was not produced in electronic form and made generally available to the PUBLIC, since this was a PUBLIC hearing, except for the totally unacceptable and disgraceful in camera hearing of closing statements. I do not believe that even counsel involved have seen the report. And I am dismayed that after a delay of three weeks to compensate for, allegedly, three days lost in holidays, we, who have paid well over $600,000 for this Commission and report and whose children and grandchildren are directly affected by this report, have no clue what this report actually says.

“Instructed and ordered”
There is a difference.

The gun is loaded and the safety catch is on, but you can “guess” who is in the cross-hairs. There are as many secrets yet to be told, as there are threats to be backed-up.

@checkit-out

The report cannot conceal secrets, we will find out.

The “conspiracy theorist” are at it again. check out……check-it-out. it

Yardbroom;
Semantically, “instructed” is just a method or conduit for relaying a directive or an order. (PS’ and Senior Public Servants do it all the time to buffer themselves from any fallout from the action implicit in the instructions – many public servants will know the phrase “I have been instructed” implying someone else made the order. Thus “instructed” is part and parcel of the ultimate action ensuing from the instruction. The instruction is therefore a necessary part of the order as the order has to be communicated to the persons carrying out the order through the instructions. Therefore the Union might be actually saying that it is only suggesting a particular action, not ordering it. It was therefore perhaps seeking to provide itself an excuse for if the Teachers went ahead with an action which it later intended to dissociate itself from.

Amused’s prescription of “advised” would have been much clearer and better and would have adequately fullfilled the Union’s objectives.

Anyhow, it really doesn’t matter very much now as it will only inform the public re. the solid and steady transigence of the union in this matter, whatever the consequences.

Will await the publication of the whole or part of the COI with great interest.

@ David
Sometimes a Union in an Industrial Dispute speaks with a” forked tongue” because of Legal ramifications if they are seen to be giving directions as Union Policy, which they are legally restrained from doing. I am not saying that is the case here but such a situation often arises.

A lot depends on the area concerned, in the Military a soldier might refuse a command – which he should not do – but then he could be told: “I am giving you a direct order”, the stakes immediately become higher and he will know that.
— – – – – – – – – –

Hi Checkit-out
I take on board the comments of Amused you have high-lighted. . . . . which have given clarity. I focused on what was actually written.

@Yardie. I am in complete agreement with Checkit-out. I will tell you why he is correct in terms of context. Such a communication from a union or any other public body, has to framed in (quasi) legal terms. There is no option on that. It has to be done that way. The same would apply if you are a company (public or private) writing to your shareholders. There can be no plausible argument there. When you go to an attorney, you “instruct” that attorney – in other words, you order them. If someone writes to the secretary of a company, likely they will get a response – “My instructions are…….”. That means that “I am ordered that…….” Therefore, when a union “instructs” its membership, it orders them. And the caveat that this is an “instruction” and not an “order” is transparent……because, if it is not an order, why waste time making this point, instead of simply using “request” or “advise”? There is no dearth of words in the English language to ensure that there is complete accuracy of intent and I have provided two alternatives. Therefore the way the union has phrased it is an unsubtle threat to add to the plethora of threats it has already issued.

@Sargeant. I really have not a clue what the commission report says. Not even the slightest idea. Apart from the GG and, presumably, the PM, no one has as far as I can discern. Not being directly involved in it, I am not exactly “bracing” for anything. I am merely speculating, based in equal parts on the demeanour and conduct of the Commissioner, the subsequent conduct of the MoE that produced The Letter, The Letter itself and the general conduct of the BSTU, not to forget the extraordinarily stupid conduct (whereby he confirmed Errol Barrow’s stated opinion of him) of Keith Simmons and the rumblings emanating from both NUPW and from counsel generally.

Barbadians continue to wait as has been the case under this government on the report of the Alexandra Commission. We wait, wait, wait, always damn waiting.

In the meantime BU understands that two AX teachers have been reassigned and also some of the support staff.

The PM has promised to say something about AX next week according to the Nation. Apparently all parties will be pleased with the outcome. So can we predict that Broomes is in the process of being separated but on very lucrative conditions which he would have negotiated and obviously something which could have been done without the expensive COI.

Wonder if a copy of the report or at least the recommendations will fall off a truck?