The Ministry of Education failed abysmally in dealing with the tension at Alexandra Secondary School following principal Jeff Broomes’ speech that criticized a teacher and breached a long-standing trade union protocol.
This was the view of retired trade unionist and current consultant Patrick Frost, who told the commission of inquiry into the school’s industrial dispute yesterday that the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) had failed to respond or act after being sent a letter by the Barbados Secondary Teachers’ Union (BSTU) requesting an urgent meeting following Broomes’ December 2, 2011 remark at the school’s speech day.
Noting that the CPO basically “stands at the door of the Public Service Commission”, Frost said there was nothing to stop the CPO or her representative, since she was reported to be on leave, from inquiring about how the issue should have been dealt with or from calling in a third party, but “none of that was done”.
“Therein lies the culmination of the difficulties at The Alexandra School, and that is why we are here today,” Frost told yesterday’s hearing at the Gymnasium of the Garfield Sobers Sports Complex.
Adding that the BSTU had also been in discussion with the Ministry of Education about ongoing tension at Alexandra, Frost said: “They [the ministry] had failed abysmally, and therefore that is where the acceleration [toward strike action on January 4, 2012] came in . . . . What does a trade union do on behalf of its members when it finds itself in that situation?”
“Senior public officers, even before the writing of that letter, did not do what they should have done.
“They did not interact with the trade union in a manner that would’ve satisfied the workers employed by the same Government, as employer,” he added.
Frost also told the commission that the BSTU had no choice but to be consistent in the way it dealt with Broomes’ speech, which in part had criticized a teacher for failing to teach a class for an entire term.
He explained that in light of the uncannily similar case involving former Coleridge & Parry principal Hallam King in 1996 – which also involved the BSTU and resulted in King resigning and taking up a position in the Attorney General’s office – the BSTU had to take similar action in 2012.
“What stood behind it was an agreement between the union and the Government as employer: you are not to use a speech day as a forum to be critical of teachers!
“The issue was not whether what Mr King said was right. The issue was where it was said. The locus. We objected to that, so when Mr Broomes on December 2, 2011, made similar comments, the only consistent action we would have had was to object . . . as a trade union with a breach of an agreement with the employer.
“And it is on that basis that the separation has to be made,” said Frost, noting that Broomes, a former president of the Barbados Union of Teachers, should have been aware of that protocol.
He further noted that the protocol still existed, and if a similar incident occured at another school tomorrow, the same action would have to be taken for the BSTU to be true to itself.
Frost also set the record straight regarding any perception that he had threatened Minister of Education Ronald Jones with the fact that the BSTU had the backing of the Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU) at a meeting on January 14.
He said he merely voiced his view that it should have been borne in mind that the BWU, the most senior of all local trade unions and led by the island’s foremost general secretary, was supporting the BSTU.
“When I made that statement, it would have been to say that if the most wise, experienced and intelligent trade unionist in Barbados comes with this approach where he has indicated that the relationship between the manager and those who are managed is irreparable, fractured beyond repair, then care should be taken of those statements.
“I did not say nor should it be implied that my use of that fact was a threat,” he told the commission.
Frost also pointed out that the letter written by the Chief Personnel Officer to the BSTU last December saying the union should have followed the grievance procedure “showed a misunderstanding of the difference between a personal grievance and the issue of . . . a breach between a trade union as an entity and the Government as the employer”.
