Since the Government finally admitted earlier this year that it was going to lay off thousands of public officers, announced the process that would be employed to achieve this end, and then actually started the execution of the decision, few things have engaged the attention of Barbadians more.
From the time the first batch of workers from the Drainage Division got their walking papers up to the current protracted impasse involving workers of the National Conservation Commission (NCC), one could not help but get the impression that bungling was abounding.
Yesterday, however, after listening to a radio newscast on the talks between the NCC, Barbados Workers’ Union and National Union of Public Workers under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, we found yet another reason to be gravely concerned.
It stemmed from the statement by one union official that while they were concerned about the length of time it could take for the Employment Rights Tribunal to hear their case and rule, they were happy with what they viewed as an assurance from the Prime Minister that the matter would be handled expeditiously.
If we operate on the premise that the Prime Minister was accurately reported, then we can only remind that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
We can easily understand why the unions would want the matter handled with alacrity. It has been dragging on for several weeks now and the very members they represent seem to be losing faith in their ability to make right what they perceive as wrongs by the Government and/or its agents.
Equally, we understand why the Freundel Stuart administration would want to put this matter behind them. The whole exercise has left a sour taste in the mouths of too many Barbadians, and even many of those who believe Government had no choice but to cut jobs have been expressing doubts about their management of the process – if it can be called management.
However, that’s not our concern here. What we want to know is if the Employment Rights Tribunal is an independent body. If it is, as we suppose, then we must ask if such an assurance of a speedy hearing from a political office can’t be construed as interference in the affairs of an independent body.
It is no different from the operational independence we expect from our courts of law. Of course, an Attorney General can promise the country that steps will be taken to speed up the operations of our courts. In fact, we believe most Barbadians would welcome it.
But there is a vast difference between that and promising a speedy hearing on a particular case. That would point to a compromise of the court’s independence. The same applies to the tribunal and its independence on a specific matter – particularly one in which a Government agency is on one side, the unions on the other, and the Prime Minister is the minister responsible for establishments.
