The CLO should clarify his statement

Dec 07, 2010 Letters

Dear Editor,
Mr. Francis Carryl in his letter (Kaieteur News, 22-11-2010) commented on my letter
(Kaieteur News, 09-11-2010) and declared in his opening paragraph that he agrees that the Chief Labour Officer’s (CLO) statement must be of interest to human resources practitioners and trade unionists alike. This demonstrates that the CLO should clarify his statement, which unfortunately he has not done as yet.
Mr. Carryl made some comments and shared his opinion to which I would like to respond. I am fully aware of the need for the CLO and staff to ensure that employees are paid what are justly due to them, including taking court action if necessary. I said in my letter (Kaieteur News, 09-11-2010) that employees should not be deprived of what were legally due to them.
I have no problem with Mr. Carryl’s treatise on gratuitous payment. A man or company is free to be generous, but what must not happen is that a person is made/forced to make a payment he is not legally required to make, for then it is not gratuitous.
The words “pay off the staffers” does not sound to me as a request for the Company to be generous, but rather to pay terminal benefits, a legal entitlement. Maybe Mr. Carryl sees it differently, all the more reason for the CLO to clarify his statement.
My question about violation of the TE & SPA has nothing to do with gratuitous payment as Mr. Carryl seems to think.
The article by Leonard Gildarie (Kaieteur News 30-10-2010) stated that the Company sacked four workers and that the Company has deemed the workers ineligible for any redundancy package, a clear statement that does not indicate the Company’s willingness to be gratuitous.
That statement and the CLO’s statement “pay off the workers” suggest in my mind, that the CLO was not speaking of gratuitous payment.
The CLO is the chief industrial relations practitioner of the government and the guardian of the Labour Laws and as such what he says and does can influence other practitioners in the field; that is why it is necessary for him to clarify his statement in the context of whether they were found to be wrongfully or justifiably dismissed.
It is unfortunate that he has not done so and Mr. Carryl, though agreeing that the statement is of interest to practitioners in the field of industrial relations and human resources management, has not joined my call for the CLO to clarify.
Mr. Carryl asked me about the six employees from Republic Bank. I am sorry but I cannot now recall the facts, but I am sure it would have been dealt with based on the available evidence.
Mohamed Akeel

Latest News

The CLO should clarify his statement

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Seven Regional Champions to vie for direct promotion single spot in...

Kennard Memorial Turf Club expresses sincere...

Canada-based Guyanese Umpire Suresh Budhoo...

Anil Beharry Real Estate and Related Services...

Alarm in West Indies over radical two-division...

After 18 years hiatus, West Indies arrive in...

Features/Columnists

Jagdeo’s policies were a disaster

Forget Begging Rich Nations: Caribbean Countries Should Act to Save Themselves

John Hess speaks, Guyanese should listen

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

The CLO should clarify his statement

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]