The moral right for cause to be given

Mar 28, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News – The Public Service Appellate Tribunal is running a notice in the newspapers advising public servants of the recourse that the Tribunal provides them. But the Tribunal has also made it clear that “contract employees are not entitled to appeal to the Public Service Appellate Tribunal.” This is one of the downsides of being a contract employee. You have no right of appeal to the Tribunal in the event that you are superseded or bypassed for promotion or are unfairly or harshly disciplined, including through dismissal. Another downside is that no cause has to be given to terminate your services. The employment of a contract worker can be terminated without any cause, and at any time. However, in the interest of good governance, no person should be dismissed or terminated without just cause. And just cause can involve redundancy or the employer simply not being happy or comfortable with you. This past week it was reported that the contract of the Public Relations Officer of the Ministry of Education was terminated. A statement was issued by the affected person suggesting that he was targeted because of perceived political affiliation. The person concerned had his contract renewed under the present government last September. So, if there was no concern about political affiliation then, why should there be now? It has now become a par for course for persons, whose contracts are not renewed or are terminated, to scream that they are being politically victimized. The fact of the matter is that in law no cause has to be given for ending a contracted employee’s employment. But it is always advisable, in the interest of good governance, for cause to be provided. A person should not be put on the breadline without at least some understanding as to why he or she is being let go. The Minister of Education has denied that the decision to end the contract of the Ministry’s Public Relations Officer – a reasonable expectation of most employees – was based on racial or political grounds. In other words, the Minister is denying that the decision amounted to political or racial discrimination. The employee has not provided any evidence that his services amounted to such discrimination, regardless of how he may feel about the decision to end his tenure. But the door is open for such claims to be made when no specific reasons are advanced for termination. In a statement, the Minister is reported in the media as saying that the employee’s standard did not coincide with the standards of the Ministry of Education. The fact that some other Minister may have expressed satisfaction and approval of the work of the terminated employee is immaterial. That cannot be the basis for the Ministry wanting to retain the services of the employee. However, the statement made no mention as to whether the employee was made aware of the Ministry’s lack of satisfaction with his work and whether he was afforded any opportunity to improve his performance. It is extremely harsh to take food out of a person’s mouth without at least allowing that person a chance to do better. It is unfair for someone not be told that his or her performance was below par and that he or she needed to improve. The person should have that chance at least, unless the performance was so palpably poor that it left the authorities with little choice but to terminate. In other words, while the contract of employment does not require cause to be given, it is a standard of good industrial relations for there to always be cause and for the employee to be told of the reason or reasons why he or she is being let go. The employee concerned did say that he was summoned to the office of the Minister and told that his services were no longer required. But on what grounds? Was it a case of restructuring as the employee said he was told or was it performance? What is disturbing about this incident is the role of the Minister. Elected officials should have no role in the hiring and firing of officials. It is not for a Minister to assess a person’s performance. It is not for a Minister to be indicating to an employee that his or her services are no longer required. That is the role of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry. And for a Minister to have to be involved in such personnel matters, suggests indeed that there is a problem with standards. And that it reaches very high in the Ministry.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

Latest News

The moral right for cause to be given

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Everest Masters to engage Costa Rica in T20 fixtures

GCB saddened at passing of Former GCB...

Guyana/Barbados battle as opening round gets...

ESCL T20 starts March 2

Guyana boys team selected for 2025 PAHF Jr...

Mainstay Goldstar FC receives NSC support ahead...

Features/Columnists

The clock and the cloud

CARICOM Nations Should Respond Together To new U.S. Policies

Wood snake year

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

The moral right for cause to be given

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| February, 14th, 2025

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 […]