A TALE OF TWO CASES

Sep 12, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Two industrial relations disputes are featuring prominently in the media at the moment. Both, in my estimation, do not deserve the attention they are having in the media.
The first is the dismissal by the Public Service Commission (PSC) of a senior office of the Guyana Police Force. Those persons that are of the opinion that the PSC acted wrongly or was harsh and injudicious, in dismissing the senior police officer, should answer a simple question: If the police officer in question was in their employ would they have retained him considering how he acted in this matter?
Would any private employer who denies a member of staff study leave to pursue a scholarship abroad and then discovers that the officer left on his annual leave to pursue the studies and covers the remaining period during which he was studying with a medical, still retain the services of that employee? I would like to know how many private employers would retain such an employee upon his return.
Obviously the senior police officer in question is not a private employee, and thus unlike what happened a few years ago when a private commercial bank let go of some of its workers, having lost confidence in those employees, the senior police officer enjoys certain statutory protections under the law and constitution.
Thus, the services of the senior police officer cannot be simply terminated. The matter has rightly engaged the attention of the Police Service Commission, which has opted to terminate the employment of the senior police officer.
There has been the contention that the officer was denied the right to a hearing and in another commentary, the criticism was made that formal charges were not made against the officer and thus he was denied due process.
These are matters which may be the subject of a court challenge and it would be for the courts to decide whether such a process was necessary given the straightforward nature of the disciplinary action. After all, the senior officer is not disputing that he proceeded on a course without the consent of his employer. He is not denying that he left without receiving the approval for the study leave which he had applied.
Even if the courts rule that for such a matter, the officer was entitled to a charge and a hearing, the principle of fairness would demand that the court equally consider whether the disciplinary outcome would have been different given the circumstances of the case.
What are the circumstances of the case?  A senior police officer is awarded a prestigious scholarship to undertake a course in security overseas. The course is expected to last one year. The officer applies for study leave but his request is denied. He then applies for no pay leave. No response is forthcoming.
In the meantime, the officer has three months accumulated leave and so he proceeds overseas and begins his course. This the officer does with the full knowledge that his program is for one year and that he only has three months annual leave. As luck would have it, the officer falls sick with post traumatic stress disorder and amazingly, the doctor advises him that he should continue his studies since it would be therapeutic. And so the officer, following his doctor’s advice, continues his studies for the remainder of the course because his medical would cover him for the period when he was off the job.
These are the facts as they have appeared in the media and which the Police Service Commission had to consider. The Police Service Commission has no doubt considered the facts and has dismissed the officer.
The actions of the officer speak for themselves. He left the jurisdiction fully committed to pursuing studies despite not having the requisite approval for study leave or for “no pay” leave. He has reaped the consequences of his actions.
The second matter that is being featured in the media concerns the non-appointment of someone who has been acted on and off as the Chief Education Officer and who is soon to retire but is not being confirmed. The Guyana Trades Union Congress is picketing the Ministry of Education over the matter.
They are picketing the wrong office. Appointments of public officers within the education sector are made by the Teaching Service Commission and not by the Ministry of Education.
While one can appreciate the concerns over the non-appointment of a Chief Education Officer, those raising their voices and placards in protest ought to be reminded that the fact that someone has acted repeatedly in a position does not secure an entitlement to that position. In fact it is quite possible that someone from outside the employment of the Ministry of Education may be considered fit and suitable for the job. The position of Chief Education Officer should be advertized and persons, including professionals not presently government employees should be invited to apply.
What should be of utmost importance is not assuring the pension of anyone, but of ensuring that the best skills are available within the sector, even if that person is not presently employed within Guyana or within the education sector.
The protests therefore should not concentrate on advancing the case of any specific individual, however capable that person is. The protests should be about ensuring that the position is advertized, the applicants interviewed by the Teaching Service Commission, and the position filled.

---

---