Cutie-Lynch

Employment Rights Tribunal 2014 064 Cutie Lynch and NCC Decision, with document

Hal Gollop, Chairman of the ERT

Hal Gollop, Chairman of the ERT

The decision was finally handed down by the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) in the matter of the NCC and Cutie Lynch. This is a matter that stoked robust public debate. BU is pleased to post the following document for one and all to study. Of note is that the complainant Cutie Lynch acted on her own behalf.

Tags: , ,

26 Comments on “Employment Rights Tribunal 2014 064 Cutie Lynch and NCC Decision, with document”

  1. Amused July 20, 2016 at 6:41 PM #

    Well, I think that this proves that Hal is an excellent jurist and actually not in the thrall of government when it comes to administering justice. I hope that members of the Bench are taking note of how it should be done.

    Like

  2. Frustrated Businessman aka 'Nation of Laws' my ass. July 21, 2016 at 10:28 AM #

    Amused July 20, 2016 at 6:41 PM #
    Well, I think that this proves that Hal is an excellent jurist and actually not in the thrall of government when it comes to administering justice. I hope that members of the Bench are taking note of how it should be done.

    The opposite is the case. All that has played out is as was intended. Bajans love a comedy play. The unemployed are still unemployed, the cost to gov’t is one-year’s wages instead of five and the public now feels the matter has been resolved in a fair manner. Even the unions are happy with the ‘bitter sweet’ outcome and have shut up. Hal’s ‘give them something to shut them up’ directive has been fulfilled.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Amused July 21, 2016 at 11:09 AM #

    @Frustrated Businessman. I stand by what I said. Hal was bound by statute and within that statute he had the flexibility to award 4 weeks, or 30 weeks or the maximum, which is 52 weeks, which is what he awarded. The maximum that he could. You will have note that the award does not extend to Ms Lynch only, but to quite a number of others who are named in the judgement. So it is far from the cheap payout you infer, but maybe you missed that bit even thought it is very clear, along with the maximum tariff by which the tribunal was bound. So your quarrel is with the government for having set the limit by statute, not with Hal.

    Like

  4. Donna July 21, 2016 at 11:31 AM #

    Frustrated,

    Spot on! The government has still come out tops financially and Lowe triumphs politically. True that he was not to blame for the limit but I suggest he knew going in what was what. This proves nothing about his integrity. The workers who were unfairly dismissed still have no jobs and the late-comers from a particular constituency still have theirs. This is all a set up to give the appearance of justice when in truth it is anything but.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. David July 21, 2016 at 11:35 AM #

    Why the hell this matter had go to arbitration?

    Like

  6. Gabriel July 21, 2016 at 12:55 PM #

    If NCC Neblett had balls,he would have stuck to the guidelines of the LIFO principal.End of story.If Lowe want to change that and Stuart condone Lowe’s interference,it proves that politicians misuse taxpayers monies and the opportunity cost of those funds will be felt in some other area of the economy……maybe the Social Welfare ministry which is in shambles with old folk being mistreated and young children losing their lives under the watch of Steve Blackett,the announcer.

    Like

  7. David July 21, 2016 at 2:35 PM #

    Will Neblett or Lowe be held accountable for the missteps that led to a waste of taxpayers dollars having this matter referred to the ERT?

    Like

  8. Bush Tea July 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM #

    @ Gabriel
    If NCC Neblett had balls,he would have stuck to the guidelines
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    …and if he had balls pray tell how he would EVER have landed the job in the first place?
    Frustrated Businessman is correct….
    The system is fundamentally flawed.

    Like

  9. David July 21, 2016 at 3:36 PM #

    Neblett is a political appointee isn’t he?

    Like

  10. S Bovell July 21, 2016 at 7:26 PM #

    @Donna,

    You are so on point! This was orchestrated from the beginning! Our leaders need to learn that it is right doing that will exalt this nation, not injustice to our own fellow man. How can you disregard the rule and send home people with more years to keep your friends or family and then send this to a tribunal where the maximum award is 1 year’s salary? These people do not have a conscience.

    Like

  11. Frustrated Businessman aka 'Nation of Laws' my ass. July 22, 2016 at 6:34 AM #

    Amused July 21, 2016 at 11:09 AM #
    @Frustrated Businessman. I stand by what I said. Hal was bound by statute and within that statute he had the flexibility to award 4 weeks, or 30 weeks or the maximum, which is 52 weeks, which is what he awarded. The maximum that he could. You will have note that the award does not extend to Ms Lynch only, but to quite a number of others who are named in the judgement. So it is far from the cheap payout you infer, but maybe you missed that bit even thought it is very clear, along with the maximum tariff by which the tribunal was bound. So your quarrel is with the government for having set the limit by statute, not with Hal.

    Amused, do not confuse my assessment with support or disapproval, it is merely an opinion based on observation and prior personal knowledge.

    No manager can run a company without the ability to hire and fire as the need for talent arises and the level of business reduces. The civil service and statutory corporations are hamstrung, we will never get better service or reduced cost from either.

    Much more importantly, I have argued for years that our gov’t should not be spending taxpayers’ money to run statutory corporations that compete with taxpayers. The thought is so absolutely ridiculous it could stand no test of even slight analysis.

    My opinion stands, the outcome was the only one that suited everyone’s conscience, Hal was merely the conductor carrying out his masters’ bidding.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. David July 22, 2016 at 6:49 AM #

    Elsewhere in the media Caswell has called the decision disgraceful pointing to the fact the employees should have been reinstated if all agree they were illegally severed.

    Like

  13. Enuff July 22, 2016 at 11:26 AM #

    David
    That letter alone says that he is a political appointment…lol.

    Like

  14. David July 22, 2016 at 11:30 AM #

    Caswell has stated the parties should appeal the decision, appeal to who?

    >

    Like

  15. Gabriel July 23, 2016 at 10:49 AM #

    It is within the power of the workers of Barbados in general,including those represented by the 2 unions plus those of the Teachers Unions,to test this case before the courts.I would argue that there is a good chance of the courts declaring this Tribunal’s resolution void ab anitio.The recommendation of LIFO was NOT followed and that is enough to haul Denis Lowe and stupid lap dog Neblett before a judge of the High Court to defend Lowe’s brothers being hired and retained in preference to those with 10 plus years of service and who have lost their rights to a pension.The BLP should lend their legal expertise pro bono.
    Kerry Simmonds was on solid ground yesterday when he suggested his party was defending the rights of those NCC and BIDC workers.Meanwhile Inniss can answer Paul and the Bajan public about the chicken wings scandal which continues unabated,giving energy to the rumour that both Inniss and Sinckler are raising money to fight a General Election.Not one damn seat for wunna.

    Like

  16. David July 23, 2016 at 10:54 AM #

    @Gabriel

    The ERTdecision can only be tested on points of law. The BWU has indicated that their legal team is currently reviewing. We will see.

    >

    Like

  17. Amused July 23, 2016 at 4:15 PM #

    @Gabriel. Not sure how any court can void the decision ab initio (or even ab anitio), but I will happily defer to Jeff on if this can be done.

    As for an appeal, well of course it can be appealed. BUT, an appeal is a double-edged sword and I am sure that counsel for the unions are considering that aspect carefully. If the unions open the door, the other side may opt to walk through it, because in the same way the unions can claim that the award is too little, the other side can claim that it is too much. As for reinstatement, certainly there are statutory provisions for that, as the judgement clearly states. However, there are guidelines for that in the statute and it is discretionary. Then, there will be costs involved and you never know what order a court will give there. A lot to consider before doing anything, so I am waiting with great interest to see what is decided. My instinct is that an appeal will, at best, likely fail and, at worst, not only fail, but see the award reduced. But that is just my surmise.

    Like

  18. David July 23, 2016 at 4:28 PM #

    @Amused

    You must factor the political dimension not sure if the government would want an email with a general election on the horizon.

    Like

  19. Gabriel July 23, 2016 at 5:28 PM #

    My post seems to have gone into cyberspace so I will refine my thoughts on Amused’ post.
    The Tribunal is suggesting that reinstatement or reengagement will require an adjustment to the policy articulated by the Government.There is no need for any such transaction because the policy is not at issue here.What is at issue is that the policy as enunciated in the guidelines,was not followed.LIFO was the method by which the list of affected employees was to be drawn up and actioned.What seems to be causing double vision among the party supporters is that LIFO was not followed.The Tribunal again makes the error of determining the impracticability of reinstatement of these affected employees and is Ipso facto decreeing that such reengagement is therefore out of the question.The issue is not that difficult to understand if you want to reengage the employee.The employee has no quarrel with the employer exercising his right to retrench but they have a quarrel with the method used that ran counter to the method decreed.The severed have argued that LIFO was not followed and as a result if LIFO had been followed many of them would not be unemployed today.Failure to reengage without further delay is a legitimate concern of these employees.In short if 200 are to go,it must be the last 200,assuming all things are equal.It cannot be equal if an employee with 10 years of service is replaced by favoritism as opposed to date of hiring.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. millertheanunnaki July 23, 2016 at 5:45 PM #

    @ Amused July 23, 2016 at 4:15 PM

    How about mimicking the true Westminster-style democracy by requesting the resignation or dismissal from Cabinet the minister responsible for not only breaching the decision of Cabinet but also causing gross embarrassment to the Government and imposing a rather costly and unnecessary financial burden on the taxpayers?

    But we both know we are not in the UK, no?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Gabriel July 23, 2016 at 6:42 PM #

    Miller
    It’s this type of shenanigan that runs investors and make local investors tremble.There is no justice where learned people only see paramountcy of the party and to hell with principle,good governance,peace,goodwill and prosperity for all.These so and so fatted calf supporters are only interested in principal.The blinkered lot!

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Amused July 24, 2016 at 3:08 AM #

    @David. I have long since given up trying to predict what politicians will do. As people enter Parliament, they seem to park their ethics and brains at the door.

    @ Gabriel July 23, 2016 at 5:28 PM. With respect, I think that is a mis-statement of the statute. You will need to re-read it for yourself. It is available online. The Tribunal appears to me to have followed the statute, but that does not remove the right of appeal. You seem not to have understood what I was saying, which is that yes they can appeal, BUT be cautioned that appeal in this case is a two-edged sword. I then surmised (not stated) how I thought (not was convinced) that such an appeal would play out and you are perfectly entitled, in fact I invite you to as this is a discussion forum, to surmise and think differently – and hell, for all I know, you may prove to be right, but I don’t THINK so.

    @Miller. As I understand it, in what you call the “Westminster-style democracy” seems to me that it is not any legal compulsion that is in play here, but a question of ethics, dignity and decency. If someone transgressed those, they should resign. But always remember the negotiations that surround such things, the golden handshakes. Do you think that they play a part? I am quite sure that they do. Have you noticed that venal and incompetent politicians that leave office always seem to end up down the road in important taxpayer-funded posts that provide a fresh forum for their “talents”and add significantly to their pensions? And that is true of everywhere, not just the “Westminster-style democracies”. Either that, or they cling to office like grim death. The moral is to just avoid the criminal, or being caught in the criminal or have a DPP that will not follow-up the criminal.

    Like

  23. David July 24, 2016 at 3:42 AM #

    @Amused

    People are not buying that this is a fair decision after waiting for so long. Maybe fair in law (time will tell) but devoid of morality and justice for the small man.

    Like

  24. pieceuhderockyeahright July 24, 2016 at 7:12 AM #

    Ohhh yes.

    It is obvious that they are gearing up for a January 2017 election

    In addition to the activities by Stinkliar and pornville there is the proliferation of ZR licenses and the launching of the Housing scams sorry schemes by Minister Of Housing Kellman.

    Why January?

    6 months of downtime and the inability of the opposition to get ready and canvass,

    All of the seeming caring government scams, ERT. Win?, road repairs, tax returns, community consultations, taxi licenses

    Kadooment – lull them into false states of all is well

    Independence and 50th Anniversary – the oh see how well the nation is doing

    Christmas – deck the halls with boughs of folly

    These are “block out dates” to your enemies, who are sleeping and not canvassing.

    so it is January and the fact that a certain body ent tekking a vacation with he outside woman in de Pine, de one dat got he Visa card tell *** so, confirm it.

    A lot uh wunna slow doah heheheheh Intel does look fuh innocuous things to indicate preparedness for war, like food stockpiling and water consumption.

    Ye have eyes but see not….

    Like

  25. junior lucas July 27, 2016 at 1:48 PM #

    Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 22:05:27 +0000 To: juneve13@live.com

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Caswell Franklyn Column – Unfair Dismissal by NCC, Unfair Decision by Employment Rights Tribunal | Barbados Underground - July 24, 2016

    […] See ERT Decision –Employment Rights Tribunal 2014 064 Cutie Lynch and NCC Decision, with document […]

    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: