Poor Judgment by Public Service Commission

Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union

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.

215 thoughts on “Poor Judgment by Public Service Commission


  1. @david
    How do you identify and separate the leaders on BOTH sides?

    @caswell
    You continue to subtly promote this FALSEHOOD with absolutely no facts or relevant laws. I will point it out everytime you do. .

    Observing


  2. It is obvious that these transfers were concocted by people who did not use the common sense approach of evaluating the possible “fallout” from their actions.

    Sadly these people are intelligent, educated but lazy and indifferent (as the old people used to say)


  3. @Caswell

    It does not reflect well on the BSTU that this matter would not have made the agenda item if it is a union charged with representing its membership.


  4. for indeed after reading BSTU position one can conclude the PSC has created a monster. Now i await govt response .seeing that it is only two days before the opening of school ,time is of the essence .


  5. Wait if memory serves me right the issue at the AX was surrounding the conduct of one man Jeff BROOMES and a COI came about to investigate and determine the causes and concerns . now at the end what we have is chaos and upheavel with an additional thirty people involved ,how de hell could this happen with an investigation of one man and a resolution involving thirty disgruntled people FS must be asking what de F…k


  6. @cASWELL

    you will also come to realize that they are some teachers who thin they can do as they please. I would like you to comment on this notion that shop stewards cant be tranferresd as stated by Ms. Redman.


  7. Observing;
    Given the usual Freundel reaction, too late, fumbling and lacking vision, I see this escalating mess lasting long enough to totally reverse his and the DLP’s vaunted upward momentum. It has the potential of ensuring that Broomes comes out smelling like roses to some who are now condemning him. Can you imagine the scene at AX on Monday morning with 2 Principles, a few multiple teachers and several new teachers reporting for duty along with the Student’s Team Broome and some indignant parents. All of this later photoshopped and used extensively in the upcoming election under the title “Freundel’s Folly strikes again”. Even if that were not to happen, as this post might preempt it, the damage would still have been done.

    Freundel’s goose is cooked if things continue on the path they seem to be going. The only sensible thing he can do now is call the elections this weekend for the end of January to marginally cut his losses and preempt a little of the backlash and Union actions, while insisting that he had planned to do so all the time.


  8. @To the poin

    Did she say they can’t be transferred or that they must be a different process followed to ensure shop stewards are protected?


  9. @caswell

    i just saw ur earlier post. Where in your post have u answered that shop stewards cant be tranferred if the 1980 Act does not apply.

    @Observing

    I invite your comments on this. By the way, deep in mind I always suspect that you were associated with the legal profession.


  10. I also see at least one of the Eager 11 hands in this series of events. There must have been an inside aspect to Freundel’s apparent lack of engagement when those letters were composed and being sent since the transfers seem to totally contradict his apparent position on the conflict and indeed could provide some impetus for a totally different narrative on implicit promises he might have given to BSTU earlier in the action last year.


  11. to an outsider looking in at the turn of events surrounding this issues this in madness and the cooler heads must prevail and it is imperative that the head of govt make a statement at this crtical stage surrounding the ongoing saga.the childrens interest cannot be compromised for the interest of others


  12. @To the poin
    t

    Redman referred to international agreements which Barbados is signatory which protect shop stewards and NOT the 1980 Act.


  13. most of observing comments were rational and impartial some of which i agree. but today is a new day and other light has been shone on the issue that is BSTU stating that “precedant” must not be allowed and LAW is the order of the day. so where do we go from here PM ? it seems like we have reached a cul-de-sac and much needed direction set as precedent.


  14. Tings bad if AC is calling on the head of Government (I think she means FS, and not the GG, but doesn’t have the heart to call him out) make a statement at this critical stage. I entirely agree with her. But I’m not holding my breath.


  15. yes check it out. i am calling for the PM to make a statement if not come monday what seems like a simple issue of being able to Fire indivudal might turn out for cause for industrial actionby BSTU. just reading the tea leaves. the public needs answer and the children involved deserves better.cooler heads must prevail and the PM has demonstrated so on previuos ocassion. however time is not on his side as the hour draweth nigh and the smoldering tinder box is becoming a towering inferno.


  16. the PSC has shown that they did not have the guts to FIRE BROOMES without throwing in something of “good measure” unfortunately it has bckfired and the PM must take a stand political or otherwise no matter what.


  17. @Casweel and Observing

    if the two teachers have susequent appointments since the 1980 agreeement what happens. Isnt the law paramount to any agreement.

    Just asking


    • Teachers who were appointed after the commencement of the 1981 Education Act can be transferred without their consent according to the MOU. Even so, these transfers are wrongful because they are punitive. The Public Service Act sets out a code for dealing with persons who have committed offences. In this case, the PSC has sidestepped the rules and punish by transfer.

      Observing

      You following: I need my fees.

      Sent from my iPad


  18. To the Point (7:23)

    Let me make myself clear. Ordinarily shop stewards can be transferred but it is a criminal offence to dismiss or adversely affect a person for union activity, according to section 40A of the Trade Union Act. These transfers were clearly punitive and as such, they were criminal.


  19. WAIT, Wunna people don’t sleep doh….? =))

    @ GP
    “MAN AM YET TO SEE BUSHTEA EXEGETE A BIBLE PASSAGE”
    *********
    Bush Tea don’t exegete, Bushie validates….
    When one knows the story one needs not try to extricate bits and pieces from passages. one is able to explain those passages. 😉

    @ Caswell
    Boss contributions on this Blog.
    If you had listened to Bushie’s advice to stay out of the initial AX exchanges you would now be batting 100%

    @ Observing
    You and Bushie know that you ent no lawyer. You serve a much higher calling. DO NOT MIND AMUSED. Industrial Relations is a funny business. It is more about power and PR than law and rights.
    All employers have the “right” to dismiss an employee, but in the wrong IR climate such “rights” are meaningless….

    @ ac
    What are the tea leaves you are reading now…. BUSH tea leaves?? LOL Ha Ha

    If FS is smart, he will today announce the dismissal of Jones, the halting of the transfers, the sending on leave of the three top players, and that the new MOE has two weeks to come up with a plan.


  20. @Pat
    Miss Redman is fighting a losing battle with this foolishness on tranfer of shop stewards and their refusal to turn up for work, unless they present a doctor certificate ,is guilty of insubordiantion which constitutes a minor offence under the PSA ot 2007.

    @All
    Miss Redman will lose this battle again, and the PM has not say in matters relating to transfer, it is the PSC.

    @Observing
    i realixed you chose your words very carfully as regards mr. simmons, one of the things in law where there is a conflict of interest, you excuse yourself from the decision making process, dont u think thie would have appertained to Mr. Simmons.

    I notice Ms, Redman pre-suupposes a lot, which she woud have difficulty in proving in court. What is ms. rdman aganda? She got a solution. I think she needs her head axamined. She bettr be carfule that she is not sued.


  21. Re. Ms Redman’s points of action? Is Hal Gollop still the BSTU’s lawyer? Is he backing her response? The waters are getting very muddy, are’nt they?


  22. The authorities can do whatever they like
    The people in Barbados lack the gumption to do anything about anything
    There are too many timid persons in this society who are not willing to fight for anything.
    For this blog not to be taken as a joke, all the people who contribute should come out and identify with issues and start a pressure group to fight crap. Stop hiding behind nick names and cursewords. Wunna could do that too but wunna need to come out and challenge things.
    Too much talk
    Too many jokes
    aint going to get Barbados anywhere
    Affirmative Action
    Affirmative People


  23. AC and others.
    When this thing started i said fire JONES,now i say fire karen Best and Jones we kept warning the Jones was siding with his B U T friends along with Broomes drinking partners DENNIS CLARKE and WALTER MALONEY, along with GAIL the C PO (walter maloney walking partner ,recall how he defended her by calling the BSTU was wrong to attack her ,now see how the plot has being playing out CPO WOULD NOT MEET WITH BSTU BUT SHE MET WITH BROOME ,DENNIS CLARKE AND A LAWYER,
    Jones,Best and the CPO issues letters of transfer to BSTU teachers ,thus breaking the back of BSTU at ALX School while at the same time increasing BUT influence in the teaching field –we shall soon see another but president become a headmater at a primary school -watch and see what the leader of the sheep get by the way were there any teachers at WELSEY HALL more qualify than the acting head who is a but Executive member .


  24. To Caswell; Can the other teachers who do not fall under the MOU not take up their assignment on Tuesday?


  25. Why does Freundel always appear so aloof. He is never willing to engage the public nor media. In fact I doubt Freundel has ever held a discussion with the media (StarCOM and CBC) together. Then he makes comments such as He aint read the CLICO report because it was stolen or He never said he was giving a running commentary on the Alexandra issue and he is at a stage where only he knows.

    This thing has been going on for way too long. If the DLP professes to have Education at its core, it should just move Broomes and the Deputy, let the other teachers remain until summer, then move them if need be. That seems the most common sense approach in the best interest of the students. I do not care what the Law says. And for those idiots thinking that any teacher can just be transplanted in another school and expect it wont be disruption is a TOTAL JACKASS. LIME bringing in new management, look at the disruption. Carol Roberts replaced another host and there was upheaval for some time. This term is hectic due to Sports, SBA completion, possibly elections and some holidays. For goodness sake let common sense prevail.

    Have you all ever seen a centipede with its head off? As dangerous as it is it then settles down and stop moving. Broomes is the centipede. Take note!


  26. Bush tea; I agree fully with you on the strategy you have outlined for FS to take today. But that requires quick decisive action. I would therefore be surprised if FS takes your wise counsel. He needs to cogitate more on the matter. Should he take such action when an election is in the offing? Should he damage the chances of the DLP in the election by damaging Jones now? By taking such action would he be admitting that he had let go of the reins and so allowed the MOE to make determinations that he was not in favour of? Would he be damaging his own credibility and putting out that image for the whole electorate to see, in addition to his own constituents? Would a noticeably damaged leader be an asset to the DLP at this stage? Should he step down now as leader? If so what effect would that also have on the DLP? What would he expect the BLP do now?

    All difficult choices for any leader and not ones that FS, given his record of decision making and the timing thereof, seems to be likely to make TODAY. But I might be wrong, I often am.


  27. Barbados NEEDS an election so that it can settle down and serious programmes can be started. Freundel you are starting to upset me greatly. At this point everyone knows who they are voting for or if they will not vote. STOP WASTING TIME.


  28. E2; Perhaps instead of Broomes, the old AX scholars might be the centipede whose multiple heads needed chopping off.


    • @Amused

      Jeff monitors BU and is free to comment when motivated to do so. He has stated on an earlier blog that there is precedent for the transfers to be challenge and he cites to cases to support his position.


  29. David and E2; Ahh! The eager 11 or whatever enhanced number it is now. Wonder how they are taking these developments? Wonder if they are all prepared to go down fighting under an inept leader.

    The stage is set for Scene 2 in this drama which will unfold this weekend. Will FS take to the plate to defend himself or fumble the ball by taking seeming indecisive actions?

    I think his action here will seriously influence that section of the voting public that had decided to vote for him and his party. They might stay away, as gauged by the seeming volte face on this issue now being demonstrated by stalwarts like AC and others. It might also influence the undecideds.

    If he doesn’t act now in a sensible strong manner his goose is cooked, imvho.


  30. @TTP
    The MOU protects teachers appointed before 1981 . If redman is right 2 such persons have that status and cannot be transferred. Wink wink and grab popcorn.

    @david and others
    For ILO 135 to apply prejudice would have to be shown. Shop stewards CAN be transferred. Redman is stretching hard to make this one stick. I concede though that by virtue of their position consultation should occur.

    @caswell
    You’ll get fees when
    1) you find a way to prove I am wrong in asserting that a chemistry teacher CAN be assigned to another subject or point out the law which the MOU clause conflicts with.

    2) Apologise for falsely accuse me in front of fellow bloggers ( a breach of the BU code of ethics and counter to BLO Artice 987, clause zz…..dat is effin dem got any).

    Until then I withdraw my valuable labour from commenting on anything you say. No need for a David to form a Commission of Inquiry

    While you’re are at it, good luck with proving “punitive intent, adverse affection or dismissal” in a court of law.

    @bushie
    I realised a while back that your third eye peep at me while travelling in another realm and suss me out!!! Lol. At least I will get your vote. If redman had realised that power and PR were paramount last January we wouldn’t be here today. Her response is long, legally weak and riddled with supposition and potential innuendo. But bout hey all you have to do is keep nuff ingrant noise to get your own way.

    @check it out
    Let’s see who buckles first and then take it from there. Wonderful drama though! A court of law may decide much of the AX saga but the electoral court will make the ultimate decision. The chess pieces in this game already have that later battle in mind.

    More popcorn please!!!!

    Just Observing


  31. Observing; Nice erudite responses. Agreed, let’s see who buckles first. The power of a PM, if used wisely and in a timely fashion, should ensure that his opposition will be the one to buckle first. But hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and Mary Redman seems to be quite well endowed in the fury area.

    Need some more popcorns for this weekend’ installments.


  32. @David. Why not ask Jeff Cumberbatch to give his views on the constitutionality of Broomes’ transfer? I am repeating yet again that there is a constitutional issue involved here with Broomes and the other principal. BUT not with the other teachers who, if they do not accept their transfers (as three have, according to the Nation, said they intend to refuse to) are instantly subject to dismissal.

    So, instead of us listening to Casewell, who is at best a competent villiage lawyer, let us hear from Jeff. And I am quite sure Observing knows EXACTLY what I am driving at, as we are on the same page entirely on this one.


  33. Observing et al ah got some chicken wings in de oven when de popcorn done.

    Fruendel has a master plan that he hasn’t revealed as yet. I know what it is….he will announce that if those who are being transferred do not like it they have a choice. Stay and learn to live with each other or take the transfers. End of story, exit stage left!


  34. @David

    it is u who just dont get it. We must be consistent, She wanted separtion at all cost. Go to your last year blogs. The woman dont understand IR, she say things in the hope that they will stick. How the hell she can say in public transfers of shop stewards canoot happen. By the way, shop stewards are seleceted by the wokers from among themselvews. There is nothing in the ilo code that speaks to transfers, what is intended that shopstweards should not be harassed while carrying their duties.

    From what I read of this case, only three teachers are protected from transfer and could lead to an injunction; broomes and the two others. The rest must report to their assigned work place or else be disciplined and the union CANT DO A THING.

    As I said from day one, you cant enter negotaition saying you want separation at all cost, Is she the GG of Barbados.

    Yes David, I GET IT AND MORE THAN you think. She will continue to lose the PR battle as it was flawed from day one. That what i get.


  35. The problem i see here is two folded with contracts and agrrements signed in place and Unions legallyand dutifully bound to defend the the rights of their members. ibelieve to reached resolve it is necessary to go back to what start the dispute in orde tofind resolve. it is ironic that the same PSC which the BLP was calomuring for to reach resolve have indeed created a tsnaumi of biblical proportions. on this i am going to side with Mary until a stament from govt office of clarity.


  36. as long as the process was followed as regards transfer, it cannot not faulted, except for three persons as mentioned in another blog. I read one of the cases which jeff post, and the case was lost because the legitimate authority to make the tranfer did not do so. Only the authority that hire can transfer,discipline, appoint promote etc.

    @Observig lets dabate this as u r a lawyer.

    @Jeff
    u need to give a position on this, excluding the three persons who migh have air-tight cases against transfer without consent. There is nothing in the constitution or the PSA act which state that there must be dialogue when transfers are to me made. Transfer must be likes with likes, for example the case u posted tstated that the persons were appointed to colleges but were subsequently being transferred to a school(I hope i remembered correctly,the principle is what i am concerend about) and there is a differnce between a colloege and a school and hence the transfer would have utimately failed even if the correct authority had made the decions to transfer, Just like had any of the teachers been tranferred to primary sschools.


  37. Bush tea called to “FiRE” is/erratic and not well thought out which only adds to the chaos not forgetting that everybody has a Lawyer and back by unions . next we migh have the closure of an education system driven by the intrepretators of the Law and various Acts. at this point and time the children must be given precedant and a demand for decisive leadership must be extolled. parents and children are watching and listening.


    • @Bush Tea

      Understand your line of argument however in the litigious society we have become it will be very hard to find resolution around a bargaining table.

      With the establishment of the social partnership it has been touted as a best practice which many from around the region/world have come to observe. How has it worked in this instance? Did any one listen to the flowery speech by Cedric Murrel? Here is another guy with his fingers in many pies and obvious conflict of interest.

      A solid agreement requires all of the players to commit to finding an agreement in the interest of the priority needs which is to maintain a passive IR climate for the children’s sake. It seems that in all the back a forth the political dimension has superseded the need to practice good and honest IR relations.


  38. @ ac | January 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM |
    Weren’t you very early in the vanguard calling for the termination of the services (aka ‘fire’) of Jeff Broomes?

    Now that your man has made the usual mess of things by putting his dumb foot in his stupid mouth and passing the buck to others to do the dirty work you are backing off from forthright action to solve the vexed problem.

    Why not poll the opinions of the parents about the transfer of Broomes from Ax?
    Thank goodness the electorate does not have long to wait to FIRE the principal dumbass boss and transfer his incompetent minions to the opposition benches where they are properly qualified to function.


  39. From the public comments by the various combatants it seems like both Broomes and the Teachers singing from the same song sheet to wit:


  40. 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.


    • 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.

      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?


  41. “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?


    • @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.


  42. @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.


  43. 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.


  44. 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?


  45. @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


  46. @ 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.


  47. 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?


    • @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.


  48. @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.


  49. 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.


  50. @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.


  51. 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!!!


  52. @ 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.


  53. @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


  54. 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.


  55. 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.


  56. @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


  57. 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:

      BSTU: Failing grade

      1/5/2013

      By Amanda Nieves

      The Barbados Secondary Teachers Union is disappointed by yet another failed meeting at the Ministry of Education yesterday evening.

      In an exclusive statement to The Barbados Advocate, BSTU President Mary Redman, reported that a second meeting at the Ministry of Education was another failure, with the Permanent Secretary unwilling to respond to any concerns.

      The first meeting at the Ministry on Wednesday was aborted.

      “The meeting ended abruptly because the Permanent Secretary said that she was unwilling to answer any questions from us. She wanted only to hear our concerns. When we stated that our concerns revolved around many unanswered questions on which we needed clarification from the Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (MEHRD), she maintained that she was unwilling to answer any questions from us. We read out a list of questions that we needed information on but the PS (acting) could not be persuaded that she had a responsibility, as the highest ranking Public Officer in the MEHRD, to seek to satisfy our concerns by providing us with the required information,” Redman explained.

      http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=local&NewsID=28549


  58. 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?


  59. .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!


  60. 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.


  61. @ 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 .


  62. @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.


  63. @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.


  64. 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.


  65. 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.


  66. 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.


  67. Excellent beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time as you
    amend your site, how could i subscribe for a blog web site?
    The account aided me a applicable deal. I were a little bit acquainted of this
    your broadcast offered shiny transparent idea

Leave a comment, join the discussion.