maryredman

BSTU’s Response to Directive from Ministry of Education to Dock Salaries

bstu26th May, 2016
BSTU’s Response to the directive to Secretary Treasurers re Salary Deductions of some BUT members.

It is with great consternation that the BSTU was made aware of the contents of a letter to the various Secretary-Treasurers from the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, dated 6th May, 2016 and captioned Salary Deductions. This correspondence constituted an instruction that the salaries “ of those officers, who attended without permission, the Barbados Union of Teachers Meetings held on April 29th and May 4th 2016, respectively should be proportionately abated for the month of May, 2016.” The authority quoted for such action being based on General Orders section 3.3.2. This section states that “the pay of an officer or employee may be proportionately abated for any part of a day or period of absence from the job without permission or without satisfactory explanation for such absence.” It is my understanding that today, 26th May, 2016 some teachers in the system received pay cheques reflecting one day’s deduction with the second deduction to occur in June, 2016.

Read full text oBSTU’s Response to the directive to Secretary Treasurers re Salary Deductions of some BUT members.

Tags: ,

52 Comments on “BSTU’s Response to Directive from Ministry of Education to Dock Salaries”

  1. Caswell Franklyn May 31, 2016 at 10:09 PM #

    This response from BSTU is too prolix. The real issue is hidden in paragraph 5. Their case is succinctly at that point. The Permanent Secretary does not have the power to issue that directive in respect of teachers in secondary schools. Ignore all the other wordy nonsense.

    Like

  2. Sargeant May 31, 2016 at 10:28 PM #

    Who says Barbados is not a Paradise? A few years ago it was the SSA workers who went on strike or “sick out” and wanted to be paid too, they all want to have their cake and eat it too.

    A plague on all their houses.

    Like

  3. Bajan in NY May 31, 2016 at 11:29 PM #

    @Sargeant, the govt set a bad precedent when it paid the striking Alexandra teachers.

    Like

  4. balance June 1, 2016 at 3:12 AM #

    “Sargeant May 31, 2016 at 10:28 PM #

    Who says Barbados is not a Paradise? A few years ago it was the SSA workers who went on strike or “sick out” and wanted to be paid too, they all want to have their cake and eat it too.

    A plague on all their houses.”

    Your comment mirrors the predicament in which the management of Unions find themselves when they pander to national interest rather follow the hardliners who were insisting that the strike involving the SSA be extended to allow the garbage to remain uncollected. If the Unions had played hardball the SSA workers would be paid but as sure as night followeth day there would be another time and you would join me in picking up our own garbage.

    Like

  5. Observing June 1, 2016 at 4:34 AM #

    fluff fluff and more fluffing fluff.

    @Caswell
    The clause reads in the opinion of the Permanent Secretary OR Head of Department, not withstanding the substantive point that the Principal represents the first point of permission.

    This 4 paged, single lined, 11 point font exercise in verbosity is akin to using a paper sledge hammer to kill a hard back johnny postle.

    I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. BOTH teachers’ unions continue to do their members a disservice at a time when service is needed most.

    Just observing

    Like

  6. David June 1, 2016 at 5:29 AM #

    @Observing

    You are always so unforgiving of the Unions. What about the point that the principal’s union meets every week and there is no docking of pay? How does the MOE, an important stakeholder in the process, promote harmonious relations by engaging in a double standard?

    Like

  7. David June 1, 2016 at 6:14 AM #

    The BUT will have to respond. Another example whatever happens f the government alienating a large voting bloc. Another instance of a lack of leadership.

     

    Bad Shepherd

    Jones accuses BUT of leading teachers astray

    Added by Sandy Deane on May 31, 2016.

    Saved under Education, Local News

    inShare

    “You cannot be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker.”

    With this stern warning Minister of Education Ronald Jones last night said his Ministry would not be entertaining any discussion on the salary deductions taken from teachers’ salaries this month.

    Minister of Education Ronald Jones

    Minister of Education Ronald Jones

    Speaking in strong defence of the action by his ministry, Jones also rubbished suggestions from the Barbados Union of Teachers (BUT) that its members were merely attending meetings; therefore there were no legal grounds for Government’s punitive action.

    “You are going to tell me you are going to withdraw your labour and use a clever trick to say you are having a meeting?” asked Jones, during a political meeting at the St Luke’s Church Hall last evening.

    By way of a letter dated May 6, which was signed by the Permanent Secretary June Chandler, teachers were informed that “in accordance with Section 3.3.2 of the General Orders, you are hereby advised that salaries of those officers, who attended without permission, the Barbados Union of Teachers meetings held on April 29 and May 4, 2016, respectively, should be proportionately abated for the month of May, 2016.”

    BUT President Pedro Shepherd has since revealed that nearly 80 per cent of teachers who attended the two meetings have suffered a salary deduction. At the same time, he has cautioned that his union will not be taking the matter lying down.

    http://www.barbadostoday.bb/2016/05/31/bad-shepherd/

    Like

  8. Jeff Cumberbatch June 1, 2016 at 6:55 AM #

    “Officers who are absent from duty without permission, except [where] in the opinion of the Permanent Secretary or Head of Department the absence is due to illness or other unavoidable circumstances, are in breach of this Code, and their pay may be reduced appropriately by the Permanent Secretary or Head of Department to take account of such absence”.

    It would be interesting to hear the argument against this provision!

    Like

  9. Observing June 1, 2016 at 7:22 AM #

    @David

    I’m not unforgiving, I’m just unimpressed.

    re. the Principals: One Principal away from a school for a regularly scheduled and approved meeting does not a disruption make. Plus there is a Deputy.

    Plus I was just just just made to overstand that the Principals’ meetings serve a dual purpose (routine administrative issues as well professional development).

    This argument is a typical (and expected) Redman Red Herring.

    btw, since the Trade Union Act is now the bible of the BUT and BSTU take a read of Trade Union Act 40A (iv) and ask if the BUT followed due process.

    @Jeff
    You and I both!!!

    Right flock, right time, wrong Shepherd.

    “If ya start wrong, yuh gine end wrong”

    Just observing

    Like

  10. Prodigal Son June 1, 2016 at 9:23 AM #

    The Ministry will then have to explain to one and all why they paid the striking teachers during the Alexandra fiasco.

    Why is this case different?

    Sometime ago, the teachers at Parkinson were meeting at the union headquarters in the morning and then going to school………were their salaries docked then?

    Where is the consistency?

    Ronald Jones is just being spiteful…….keeping in line with what he and his fellow dems are doing to all Barbadians.

    Has Jones forgotten what he did as a teacher and a union leader?

    Like

  11. Caswell Franklyn June 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM #

    Jeff Cumberbatch

    “Officers who are absent from duty without permission, except [where] in the opinion of the Permanent Secretary or Head of Department the absence is due to illness or other unavoidable circumstances, are in breach of this Code, and their pay may be reduced appropriately by the Permanent Secretary or Head of Department to take account of such absence”.

    It would be interesting to hear the argument against this provision!

    Why should someone argue against that provision. It was never invoked to deduct teachers’ pay. Instead, the Permanent Secretary invoked a spent provision of the General Orders to achieve that end.

    General Order 3.3.2 states:

    The pay of an officer or employee may be proportionately abated for any part of the day or period of absence from the job without permission or without satisfaction explanation for such absence.

    That provision of the 1970 General Orders essentially speak to the same issue as the paragraph you quoted above, which happens to be paragraph 15. (1) of the Code of Conduct and Ethics. The code is the Second Schedule to the Public Service Act which came into force on December 31, 2007. In essence the provisions of paragraph 15. (1) would have repealed General Order 3.3.2 by implication.

    For argument sake, let’s say that the Permanent Secretary had invoked paragraph 15. (1) she would have been acting in excess of the power conferred by the code. Teachers are not subject to the control of the Permanent Secretary. Teachers in secondary schools report to their principals, who for the purposes of the Public Service Act, is a head of department. The Permanent Secretary would exercise that control if she were dealing with officers in the ministry.

    In the case of teachers in primary schools their head of department is the Chief Education Officer, who for the purposes of the Public Service Act is a permanent secretary. The Eighth Schedule of the Public Service Act provides that the Chief Education Officer is a permanent secretary. A man can only have one master.

    While we are at it, how can a teacher lose pay who reported late for work because that is what happened in a number of cases. If the principal thought that they were too late to clock in, he should not have allowed the teachers to work on that day. The people worked. Also the permanent secretary would have penalised officers without giving them the opportunity to be heard. Who is to say that each and every teacher that was absent on that day was on strike or, as the teachers’ unions euphemistically say, attended meetings.

    Over to you Jeff.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  12. Caswell Franklyn June 1, 2016 at 10:22 AM #

    Prodigal Son

    I don’t understand what you mean when you ask if Jones had forgotten what he did a teacher and a union leader. How could he? You must also realise that Jones was also acting a member of the DLP who was seeking to bring down the BLP administration. His was one of the thousand cuts that killed the BLP.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  13. Observing June 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM #

    @Caswell/Jeff (for my personal knowledge)

    (1) The Minister may make administrative orders to give effect to any provisions of the Codes or any other provisions of this Act.

    (2) Subject to subsection (3), the General Orders are from the date of the commencement of this Act, deemed to have been made under subsection (1) and shall remain in force until revoked by an instrument in writing by the Minister under this Act.

    (3) Where any provision of the General Orders is inconsistent or in conflict with a Code or any regulation made under this Act, the Code or regulation shall prevail and the general order shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid

    Wouldn’t this imply that this section 3.3.2 (and others) of the General Orders (which are consistent and not in conflict) still stand and can be used? i.e. Invalidity only obtains where inconsistency and conflict occur.

    Forgive my ignorance if it was revoked at some point and I didn’t know.

    Just Observing B.L. (Bush Lawyer)

    btw, Caswell, your voice is needed among the hierarchy of some of these unions. Logic, common sense and reason seem to have taken flight to a foreign land one a one way ticket.

    Like

  14. Caswell Franklyn June 1, 2016 at 11:57 AM #

    Observing

    I don’t know if my voice is needed in other unions. I strongly believe that some of the voices that are speaking on behalf of those unions are definitely not needed. They are ill-prepared for the task but their roles in the unions, especially BUT, are used as avenues for upward mobility.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  15. David June 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM #

    It gets more and more interesting, the lawyer for the BUT has come public to say he was misrepresented by the BUT. It appears he advised the union the ministry was within its right to dock pay.

    Like

  16. Prodigal Son June 1, 2016 at 1:02 PM #

    Poor BUT!

    Like

  17. Simple Simon June 1, 2016 at 1:27 PM #

    @Jeff Cumberbatch June 1, 2016 at 6:55 AM ““Officers who are absent from duty without permission, except [where] in the opinion of the Permanent Secretary or Head of Department the absence is due to illness or other unavoidable circumstances, are in breach of this Code, and their pay may be reduced appropriately by the Permanent Secretary or Head of Department to take account of such absence”.

    In this instance would it not be expedient (so as not to alienate the teacher’s votes) for the
    Permanent Secretary or Head of Department to rule that the teacher’s absence on that particular day was due to an unavoidable circumstance.

    Not that I am not asking what is legal, or moral, but simply what is politically expedient.

    I am a pragmatic person.

    Like

  18. Simple Simon June 1, 2016 at 1:35 PM #

    And so is the law which is why the words “unavoidable circumstances” are there. To give the head of department wiggle room.

    So what if I am not sick, but a family member becomes seriously sick or injured, my baby sitter does not show up, my mother in law drops me a big rock and refuses to mind my toddler that day, or my dog dies or I go to a union meeting or whatever, the PS and/or the HOD has some room to exercise the discretion and/or compassion needed to permit me to be absent with pay.

    Like

  19. Jeff Cumberbatch June 1, 2016 at 1:39 PM #

    “A man can only have one master”.

    @Casweii, I do not agree with you.According to the legislation , the teacher can indeed have two maters when it comes to the treatment of his or her salary -the principal who determines whether the teacher was ready and willing to work and did indeed work, and the PS who is the ultimate accounting authority in the Ministry and so decides upon whether remuneration may or may not be due to anyone on advisement from the Principal.The word or is ordinarily disjunctive and not conjunctive.

    A teacher who is late can lose pay because the employee disentitled to his or her wages only if he or she does the required tasks…and the employer is not obliged to accept the partial performance of less than the stipulated hours per day.

    The obligations to work and entitlement to pay are dependent conditions. No work …no pay…no pay…no work.

    As for authority-

    “If an employee refuses to perform the full duties which can be required of him under his contract of service, the employer is entitled to refuse to accept any partial performance. The position then resulting, during any relevant period while these conditions obtain, is exactly as if the employee were refusing to work at all…”

    AND

    -“If an employee offers partial performance, as he does in some types of industrial conflict falling short of a strike, the employer has a choice. He may decline to accept the partial performance that is offered, in which case the employee is entitled to no remuneration for his unwanted services, even if they are performed…”

    David June 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM #
    It gets more and more interesting, the lawyer for the BUT has come public to say he was misrepresented by the BUT. It appears he advised the union the ministry was within its right to dock pay.

    @David,

    I am not at all surprised. The lawyer mentioned is an able and learned counsel!

    Like

  20. Simple Simon June 1, 2016 at 2:07 PM #

    @Observing June 1, 2016 at 7:22 AM “One Principal away from a school for a regularly scheduled and approved meeting does not a disruption make. Plus there is a Deputy.”

    If nobody misses the principals when they are not at school (because the deputy will do the principal’s work) why are we paying principals then?

    And who does the deputy’s work while he or she is doing the principal’s work?

    I don’t understand.

    Like

  21. Caswell Franklyn June 1, 2016 at 2:14 PM #

    Jeff

    I made several submissions. I understand that you disagree with the notion that a man cannot have two masters. What about the fact that the PS invoked a spent rule.

    You must know that you have to bring evidence to support your claim that the teacher has two masters. Both the PS and the Chief Education Officer have equal rank. Teachers fall directly under the control of the CEO. It is not the permanent secretary’s role to usurp the power of the CEO. It is obvious that you are speaking from an incomplete understanding of the public service rules.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  22. Jeff Cumberbatch June 1, 2016 at 3:43 PM #

    Caswell, It is not simply a matter of rank. The legislation plainly says PS. If it wanted to say CEO, it could have done so. You cannot read CEO where the legislation says PS! I do agree with you, however, that the provision referenced in the PS’s letter was spent. A provision in the Schedule of an Act is of far more legislative significance than the provision in the General Orders.

    Like

  23. Jeff Cumberbatch June 1, 2016 at 3:44 PM #

    “…away from a school for a regularly scheduled and approved meeting”.

    There is your answer SS!

    Like

  24. Observing June 1, 2016 at 4:47 PM #

    @Caswell 11:47
    Sometimes a voice of reason can plant a seed that sprouts to overcome the vines and thorns. Our Unions (present company excluded) are struggling.

    @Jeff 3:43 and 3:44
    Thanks and thanks!

    @David 12:53
    wuh loss, wha’ next?

    Just observing.

    Like

  25. Caswell Franklyn June 1, 2016 at 7:58 PM #

    Jeff

    You are quite wrong. The legislation speaks to the permanent secretary or head of department. The CEO is not only a head of department but also a permanent secretary for the purposes of the Public Service Act.

    When the Public Service Act speaks of permanent secretary, it also means Chief Agricultural Officer; Chief Education Officer; Chief Medical Officer; Chief Technical Officer, Ministry of Public Works; Chief Town Planner and Commissioner of Police.

    Section 2 of the Public Service Act states:

    “Permanent Secretary” includes

    (a) the holder of an office in the same grade as that of Permanent Secretary; and

    (b) the holder of an office specified in Part 1 of the Eighth Schedule.

    I have already set out the six specified offices.

    Further, absence from duty without leave is an offence specified in the Code of Discipline in the Public Service. The code sets out a procedure for dealing with offences which requires that a person is entitled to natural justice. Before the PS imposed a penalty when did she give those teachers the opportunity to be heard.

    Additionally, absence from duty without leave is a major offence. The PS cannot hear cases that involve major offences. The part of the code which allows that conflicts with the Constitution, particularly sections 94 and 95.

    Jeff, I am sorry but you need to attend one of my training sessions on the Public Service Act.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  26. Simple Simon June 1, 2016 at 8:09 PM #

    @Jeff Cumberbatch June 1, 2016 at 3:44 PM “away from a school for a regularly scheduled and approved meeting”. There is your answer SS!

    I was being somewhat tongue in cheek as I often am.

    My pragmatic question is: How come the principals routinely receive approval for their weekly meetings and the troops in the trenches/also know as classroom teachers have difficulty receiving approval for an occasional meeting?

    Is it classism at work here?

    Is it political partisanship?

    Is it anti-union behviour?

    Forgive me for these little questions, but I am only a

    Simple Simon

    Like

  27. David June 1, 2016 at 8:46 PM #

    @Caswell

    Do you appreciate you have demonstrated a degree of disrespect to the Deputy Dean of the Law Faculty?

    Show some respect man!

    Like

  28. Pieceuhderockyeahright June 1, 2016 at 9:22 PM #

    Whuloss, man, whuloss de heavy gunners in here duking it out.

    see when Titans fight how mortals stand back in awe and cretins just dont join at all.

    I jes heah peeping through the window.

    The two uh wunna gents know dat THe Chilrun are is reading well and his minions are here peeping to see what determinations arise from wunna rumblings right?

    Like

  29. Bush Tea June 1, 2016 at 9:45 PM #

    Jeff should really know better than to argue Public Service regulations with Caswell.
    Nothing to do with being Dean or anything so …. just that, over the years, Caswell has been charged with practically all of these offences, …and has defended himself admirably in every case …. even when he lost.

    Shiite then…. most of these rules and regulations were WRITTEN in attempts to bring Caswell under control
    ….unsuccessfully as we can now see.

    LOL ha ha ha
    Murdah!!!!!

    Like

  30. Caswell Franklyn June 1, 2016 at 9:57 PM #

    I did not mean any disrespect but he committed a cardinal sin, he interpreted a section of the law in isolation and I was forced to point that out.

    I paid good money to attend a seminar that he conducted in an area that was completely in his expertise. I am offering to return the favour only that my sessions are free.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  31. Caswell Franklyn June 1, 2016 at 10:00 PM #

    Bushie

    One mistake; I never lost. It might happen but not yet using these poorly drafted rules.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  32. Jeff Cumberbatch June 2, 2016 at 6:30 AM #

    Caswell, thanks for the kind invitation and Know that I do not regard your different views as being disrespectful in any way. My simple point is that if the section says PS then that is what it means. Even though PS may INCLUDE those other posts,it does not exclude the substantive holder of the post, You commit the error of assuming that wherever PS is used, it may only mean those that it includes.As the section clearly indicates it also means a PS. “INCLUDES” if distinct from “MEANS” in statutory interpretation.

    Moreover, the issue here is simply about entitlement to wages. The teachers were not charged with being AWOL as they might have been. Only them would natural justice be relevant.

    Are you suggesting that once the facts exist, the charge must be brought, or that the employer is limited to that remedy, irrespective of whatever other remedy may be available to the employer? I hope not!

    Like

  33. de pedantic Dribbler June 2, 2016 at 6:46 AM #

    Jeff and Caswell it would be awesome if the clarity of your debate here could filter into any and all of the heated race debates which surround the topic of government contracts for big projects.

    Too emotive of course so unlikely.

    Like

  34. David June 2, 2016 at 6:52 AM #

    @Dee Word

    Agree with you, the exchanges on this topic should be used as a model for how good debate is defined and executed.

    Like

  35. Observing June 2, 2016 at 7:10 AM #

    @David 6 52
    If only that could happen.

    @jeff 6 30
    Interesting question about available remedies.

    @caswll
    “poorly written rules”
    truer words hsve nevet been said!

    Just observing

    Like

  36. Bush Tea June 2, 2016 at 8:21 AM #

    @ Observing
    “poorly written rules” Bushie’s donkey….
    These rules are written EXACTLY as intended.

    How do you think lawyers are able to justify their keep with such limited reasoning powers? The rules and Laws are written is such a way as to mean whatever the hell is most convenient at the time.
    Results therefore depend on who manages to recruit a decent lawyer – who bothers to take the time to look for the sections that support his client; on how committed the opposing lawyer is to researching the opposing sections; on any political considerations that may apply; and on how the Judge feels about the accused, the defence lawyer and the prosecutor.

    In short. The whole system is contrived legal shiite, designed to employ lawyers.

    Any employer (Government) with common sense would have written a couple clear sentences that essentially says that “Any employee (including the brass bowl PS) who does not report to work as scheduled will not be paid for the period of absence. Such pay will be deducted on a pro-ratio basis and will include any absences over 15 minutes”.

    ….but then how would McCarthy be able to maintain the BMW?

    Like

  37. Caswell Franklyn June 2, 2016 at 9:27 AM #

    Jeff

    The section does not only say “PS”, It says “permanent secretary OR head of department”. The regulation might be badly drafted and literally does not convey the intent. If an officer works in a ministry proper, the PS makes the decisions. On the other hand, the head of department makes the decisions in respect of officers employed in his department.

    Even in disciplinary matters the head of department is not required to pass matters through the PS. The head of department is authorised, if he thinks the matter is serious enough, to suspend the employee and then report the matter directly to the Chief Personnel Officer.

    Ask Ronald Jones and he will tell you that money is property. The teacher is paid a monthly salary. If the PS wants to deprive a teacher of his right to any part of his property, because that employee broke the rules, the PS must first ascertain that the facts and give the employee the right to be heard.

    What happens in the case of a teacher who was not in support of the action but was genuinely ill and who called in sick. Also what happens when the head of department gave permission or acquiesced in the officer being away from his job. The PS does not have the right to go behind a head of department to control officers in a particular department.

    Also the Trade Union Act might come into play here. Section 40A speaks to adversely affecting or altering the position of a workman to his prejudice. Wouldn’t you say that seizing part of an officer’s salary would either adversely affect or alter the position of a workman to his prejudice. If that is the case the PS would have committed a criminal act.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  38. Sargeant June 2, 2016 at 9:38 AM #

    One of the things that Barbados has been cursed with is a lack of beneficial (I use beneficial because good is relative) leadership. Leadership matters, it matters if you are Head of Gov’t, Head of a Corporation, Head of a Union, Head of a Family. Leadership is not a knee jerk reaction to any and every situation and in this issue the Leadership of BUT has been shown in a very unflattering light.

    The Leadership decided because they didn’t get their way that they were going to withhold their services and I don’t care what they called the “meeting” it was a de facto strike and everyone and their brother knew this. Now they are crying foul because the Gov’t decided to dock their pay for being AWOL and is tempting to throw good money after bad and ignore the advice of their legal counsel by threatening to take the matter to Court. This Leadership should be cognizant of the fact that taking Gov’t to Court is a lose-lose proposition and they would be further depleting the coffers of the Union (not to mention the taxpayers money as that is what the Gov’t will be defending itself with). It reminds me of the African proverb “When Elephants fight the grass suffers” and the “grass” is this situation is the public who have to put up with interminable squabbles that arise from every difference of opinion, every molehill becomes a K2, people take sides and the Press goes bananas, talk show hosts become hoarse and productivity (sorry bad word) goes out the window.

    The teachers should ask themselves what would they do if their charges reacted in a similar manner to any decision that they didn’t appreciate.

    Like

  39. David June 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM #

    @Sargeant

    You are correct in the first part of your comment by the docking of pay must be done within the boundary of the law.

    Like

  40. Bush Tea June 2, 2016 at 10:35 AM #

    Bushie has to agree with the Sarge…
    If you are man enough to NOT turn up for work, you should be man enough to accept the pay-cut. Talk about fighting the decision in court is childish and petty.
    One does not stand on principle only when there is no risk…. and one accepts the consequences of standing up for one’s beliefs.

    Like

  41. Jeff Cumberbatch June 2, 2016 at 10:50 AM #

    @Caswell,

    I agree that money is property but until one is legally entitled to a salary then it cannot be treated as his or her property. There is only a sees of receiving it. It must first be earned, in other words, To me the argument about deprivation of property is a non-starter!

    I did not say that the PS can go behind anyone’s back. For me, he acts on advice as to entitlement to earnings given to him by the responsible party. If one is absent because of illness, then that that, subject to the terms of the contract, is a valid excuse for non performance.

    Finally, s, 40A the TU act is not absolute in its terms. It relates to an action taken BECAUSE of legitimate Trade union membership or activity only.

    Adversely affecting employee or employer on account of trade union activities.

    40A. An employer who –

    (a) dismisses a workman or adversely affects the employment or alters the position of a workman to his prejudice because that workman –

    (i) is or proposes to become an officer, delegate or member of a trade union,

    (ii) being a member of a trade union which is seeking better labour conditions, is dissatisfied with his conditions.

    (iii) has absented himself from work without leave after he has made an application for leave for the purpose of carrying out his duties or exercising his rights as an officer or delegate of a trade union and such leave has unreasonably been refused or withheld, or

    (iv) takes part in trade union activities outside or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours: or

    (b) threatens to dismiss a workman or to adversely affect the employment or alter the position of a workman to his prejudice –

    (i) because that workman is or proposes to become an officer, delegate or member of a trade union or other combination which has applied to be registered as a trade union, or

    (ii) with intent to dissuade or prevent that workman from becoming an officer, delegate or member of a trade union.
    is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

    Note especially 40A(iii). The burden of proof is on the union member.

    Like

  42. Caswell Franklyn June 2, 2016 at 11:56 AM #

    Jeff

    I am not dealing with (iii) at all. That relates to officers of the Union. I am specifically referring to (ii) and (iv) particularly (iv). The PS overreached and has committed an offence, or rather several offences, one for each person who was punished for taking part in union activities outside the consent of the employer.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  43. jeff Cumberbatch June 2, 2016 at 1:21 PM #

    Caswell, are you now suggesting that they had the consent of the employer to be absent to participate in union activities during working hours? I cannot argue with this if they did…although they will have to prove it.

    Like

  44. Caswell Franklyn June 2, 2016 at 1:42 PM #

    No. I am suggesting that under section 40A the employer would commit an offence even if he did not give permission to be absent and thereafter adversely affect the employee to his prejudice.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  45. Prodigal Son June 2, 2016 at 10:46 PM #

    On to the NUPW.

    Something is rotten in that place. How could an acting general secretary set a date for a no confidence motion and not tell the President? Who is she serving?

    Where was the no confidence motion that should have been brought against Walter Maloney and Dennis Clarke for deceitfully lying to the members?

    These two deceitful persons agreed with the government to freeze public workers wages, agreed with the government to send home thousands of workers even though the government had promised them that they would not send home a fellow. Then the very government turned around and shown them gross disrespect by not even providing a list of the public workers that they were sending home. Dennis Clarke left the union and never got the list.

    Where was the no confidence motion for this blatant deceit and lies?

    If I was to advise Mr McDowell………I would tell him wait until the morning of the no confidence motion and RESIGN……….boom……………leave the union to the DLP bullies. He should not subject himself to be brought down by any no confidence vote because for sure the DLP bullies will have their sycophants lined up to vote.

    Akanni……resign on the morning of June 9 and get on with your life. You do not need the union to be a man. The headache is not worth it, you would live longer.

    Like

  46. Caswell Franklyn June 3, 2016 at 6:43 AM #

    Prodigal

    The acting General Secretary is serving the members consistent with the rules of the Union. Mashed has acted in accordance with the rules. Get a copy and read them before you attribute improper motives to her.

    I keep telling you that the President has been acting in excess of his powers from the time he assumed that office. Even if this is politically motivated, and it is not, something has to be done to rein in this fool. The rules of the NUPW has assigned a very limited role for the office of President but perceived power has gone to his head.

    He forgot that he came to NUPW to obstruct a case that the union brought against the Government over his controversial appointment. He should not be there in the first place. His name was not sent forward for appointment to the Public Service Commission but his father, who was the officer assigned to process the paperwork, deleted someone’s name and substituted Akanni’s. He deceived the Public Service Commission to their certain knowledge and got away with it.

    The matter has gone to court and has taken six years so far because the file went missing and when the judge ordered the Ministry of Health to disclose their file that too went missing.

    Prodigal, stay out of this business. The DEMS and Akanni just have a lovers’ quarrel. He will be back home soon enough.
    >

    Like

  47. Jeff Cumberbatch June 3, 2016 at 7:57 AM #

    Caswell, I think that you are misinterpreting subsection (iv)

    “An employer who –

    (a) dismisses a workman or adversely affects the employment or alters the position of a workman to his prejudice because that workman –

    ….

    (iv) takes part in trade union activities outside or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours”:

    The employer would be in breach only where he dismisses or adversely affects the employment of the workman if the workman took part in trade union activities outside of working hours or did so with the consent of the employer during working hours.

    The section is not happily drafted.The comma should have come after “within”, not after “employer”.

    According to your interpretation, the consent of the employer is irrelevant.

    Like

  48. Bush Tea June 3, 2016 at 8:27 AM #

    @ Jeff
    Is Caswell not arguing that the PS erred in not taking steps to establish that each and every person whose pay was reduced, in fact DID NOT have the consent of their employer’ s representative (Principal) CEO?
    Bushie sees no problem with (iv) as it is. It seems to say exactly what you say it should be saying.

    What Caswell is therefore saying, is that the consent of the employer IS relevant ….but has been ignored in the mass remedy applied.

    Like

  49. Caswell Franklyn June 3, 2016 at 9:27 AM #

    Thanks Bushie

    You are correct, the consent of the employer is irrelevant for the purposes of Section 40A.

    In addition, I am also saying that the General Order that the PS invoked has been replaced by paragraph 15. Of the Code of Conduct and Ethics. Further paragraph 15 creates an offence which is punishable by a reduction in wages. In order to impose the penalty, the officer must be given the opportunity to be heard in his own defence. Even then the PS has no authority to decide such a case because “absence from duty without permission” is a major offence which must be tried by a panel of three persons.

    If my pay was reduced by my employer, I would say that my employment was adversely affected. If I were one of the teachers involved I would bring a private criminal prosecution against the PS.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  50. jeff Cumberbatch June 3, 2016 at 9:55 AM #

    How could the consent of the employer be irrelevant if the section mentions it? Is the employee now to be perceived as running the workplace?

    Bushie, it is not usual for the defendant in a matter, in this case, the PS,to establish \a negative- that there was no permission or consent given.

    Conversely, the burden of proving that one comes within an exception is on he or she who claims that they are to be so treated. So the teachers will have to show that permission was given.

    Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat -“The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies…”

    Bushie: “What Caswell is therefore saying, is that the consent of the employer IS RELEVANT ….but has been ignored in the mass remedy applied”.

    Caswell: “Thanks Bushie.You are correct, the consent of the employer is IRRELEVANT for the purposes of Section 40A.

    I will leave you two to resolve this. I have a long day ahead! Later!

    Like

  51. Pieceuhderockyeahright June 3, 2016 at 10:41 AM #

    With regard to De Word’s submission at 6.46 am as such relates to the obvious contributions that these two stalwarts would make to other governance matters de ole man respectfully suggests that Caswell already does such and so does Jeff.

    It might be that on specific topics either of the two gents may oft times NOT COMMENT as they have here on this topic.

    Caswell ent fear a fellow and will talk to anyone anywhere.

    Neither does jeff but, whereas Caswell operated in an environment that is “outside” the sanctum sanctorum, Jeff’s substantive position is within those walls and therefore he is not a free to debate or debunk many of the topics pouted here on BU lest, in years to come, they be construed as his “bias” on a matter yet to be heard, or worse still, “reason for his exclusion from a position yet to be established”

    Some men are patient in their decisions, as patient as Job, and not impetuous and quick to fly off the handle, like me.

    You would think that I would learn wouldn’t you?

    But some uh we ingrunt as badword

    Like

  52. Observing June 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM #

    @jeff
    Great contextual elaboration.
    One question from prior posts, does paragraph 15 render section 3.3.2 as “spent”?

    @caswell
    The key in all of this is “permission”
    Who grants permission? How? On behalf of whom? Who “verifies” the reason? What proves that it has been granted?

    All loopholes in a loopholey system.

    The Union misled their members (again) by telling them to “pick up and leave” or “come straight to Queen’s Park”. All in the absence of a clear dispute, grievance or national need. Only bout hey.

    As I said earlier some voices of reason/sense/logic are desperately needed.

    Just observing

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: