There has been an interesting and, indeed, instructive coincidence of industrial relations situations over these past weeks, which provides pauses for reflection.
In one instance there is either evidence of the absence of institutional memory, or the refusal to observe consistency in the application of tried principles and practices. Another instance reveals the arrogation of power over authority.
And yet another instance offers the opportunity, justifiable or otherwise, for a published commentary on the perceived selectivity in the administration of the procedures relating to employer/employee relations in one private sector imbroglio.
It is in this context that one must applaud the very cogent submission made in SN, January 10, by the former Chief Labour Officer on the viability of the recent arbitration ‘recommendation’ not ‘award,’ made by the tribunal appointed to resolve the wages dispute between GuySuCo and GAWU.
Mr Akeel’s submission accurately reveals the inexpertise which informed:
i) the formulation of the related terms of reference;
ii) the unimaginativeness reflected in the appointment of the panel; and
iii) the patently sloppy outcome of its inertia. (How is it possible for ‘award’ to be rendered as a ‘recommendation’?)
If the former Chief Labour Officer is to be believed, one must wonder about the ability of the ministry concerned to first evaluate the efficacy of the response to the particular terms of reference, thus leaving the subject Minister for the sugar industry vulnerable to the extent of defending the application of the ‘recommendation’ to GuySuCo categories (management) not represented by GAWU.
Such a development leaves interested parties to wonder whether the corporation’s resident industrial relations competency was involved in the interpretation of the implications of the tribunal’s final product. This is the juncture at which institutional memory could have been beneficially explored.
Not irrelevantly, opportunity could have been taken to have examined the legal implications of having certain compensation packages reduced, thus making unnecessary any public commitment to do so. The former Chief Labour Officer has not refrained from belabouring this point.
In doing so he may have provided an opportunity for either the Public Accounts Committee or the Economic Services Committee to ponder whether either of them should express interest in this development, given the possible ramifications for the management and operations of the industry at this and future critical times.
It seems important that as major stakeholders these institutions should reflect on the possibility of an overflow into other entities of the promulgation of revising legally binding contracts, and whether this apparent ‘exception’ may not, however accidentally, transform into a ‘rule.’
In short the authoritative pronouncement of the former Chief Labour Officer in this regard should not be ignored.
Meanwhile, a related example of reported arrogation of power to the exclusion of ‘proper’ authority, involves the recent termination of casual employees of the GPOC, by a non-executive of that corporation. While it is quite well established that ‘casual’ or ‘temporary’ employment inheres termination without notice, there is still a procedure to be followed. One simple logical step must be that the hirer must be the one who concludes the termination.
One hopes therefore that the media reports were mistaken in attributing the decision/action to a non-executive Chairman.
At the same time, best practices in human resources management demand that the nature of ‘casual’ or ‘temporary’ employment be adequately defined – certainly in terms of duration.
The GPOC is not the only institution which abuses this form of employment – for indefinite periods, and in one ridiculous case the ‘temp’ got promoted. (Portion of the Akeel’s letter is also relevant here.)
The particular incident, however, raises fundamental questions about the quality of the HR function in the GPOC, and therefore invites legitimate concerns of its board and Chairman about its efficacy, as well as, at the same time, about the latter’s responsibility for establishing normal organisational systems and mechanisms for measuring performance throughout the institution.
Two further recommendations suggest themselves:
i) conduct a comprehensive analysis of the activities at each GPOC facility to establish the manning levels required to provide optimum service to the respective populations; and
ii) at the other end of the organisational spectrum develop terms of reference appropriate for the effective supervision by the board, within well defined limits of authority.
The latter is by no means a novelty and is a process observed in several local institutions that operate much more efficiently than the GPOC.
Contrary to some views there are mechanisms for measuring a board’s performance.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
