SN editorial made Greene out as incompetent

Dear Editor,

Many called for a change of government and the way the people’s business is being conducted. Of concern is that even as change requires prudent management such requirement jostles alongside influential leaders and opinion-shapers whose views and/or actions may not always be informed by universal principles, conventions, rules and laws. Admittedly, I am among the vocal minority who take issue with the manner in which the impasse between Ann Greene and Ministers Volda Lawrence and Simona Broomes is being handled. This position is guided by time-honoured principles, rights and the rule of law. Consequently, Stabroek News’ editorial ‘Out of Order’ (June 4) raises concerns.

Before this nation is an impasse between a worker and her subject ministers. Unfortunately the worker’s performance and conduct have been made the subject of critical focus which has no relevance to the issue in question. In 1992 when the PPP came to office, workers such as Arnon Adams, present SN Business Editor and Jacqueline Hamer, both then of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and others, saw their careers destroyed and their characters assaulted in similar manner to what is taking place today with Ms Greene. The reaction of the vocal majority to the treatment being meted out to Ms Greene mirrors the reaction of supporters and sympathisers of the PPP to the treatment meted out to Adams, et al. When addressing serious issues, gut feeling has no place in public life and institutions. In that the editorial has made the worker out as incompetent, her character brought into question and the alleged incident from the Minister’s perspective treated as gospel without an investigation. Then to pronounce that the worker’s alleged action was “out of order,” tacitly giving justification to unjust treatment, is troubling. This nation is informed that while then Foreign Affairs Minister Clement Rohee and his other colleagues in the post-1992 government engaged in similar conduct against workers, the trade union which had worked with Adams and Hamer has only positive things to say of their performance and work ethic.

The Greene/Lawrence/Broomes matter has been amplified because there is an absence of understanding of what the issue is and the process that ought to be applied. If an employee commits an infraction, real or perceived, a charge must be levelled against the worker, an impartial inquiry must be conducted, the worker must be given a chance to be heard and based on findings then a decision is made. A worker cannot be sent on annual vacation because of an altercation with the functioning superior. If the management is dissatisfied with what occurred, the recommendation must be that the worker be sent on administrative leave, which infers there is an interdiction from duty and a charge being made out against the worker.

An employee’s annual vacation is the employee’s own. If in the period for that scheduled vacation an emergency occurs, the employer can withhold the release of the employee for that time, but there must be an agreement between the two parties as to the earliest time thereafter for that employee to proceed on vacation. Annual vacation is not at the whim and fancy of any employer. Further, it doesn’t matter whether the employee is a contract worker or tenured. Once the employee works in an authorised job in the public service whatever action is taken towards that employee it has to be guided by the rules governing the Public Service.

There is the famous case of Bernard Lu-King v Guymine. The arbitrator, then Chief Labour Officer Fred Eytle, made known that while there were three different categories of employee in the company, when it came to discipline the company had to be guided by the set rules. This is a universal practice that is equally applicable for public servants, tenured or contract workers. Ministers are not foremen or supervisors. Ministers are leaders who are there to conceptualise and develop policies and from those policies programmes will flow and those programmes will be executed by the technicians. It is therefore expected ministers will conduct themselves consistent with their responsibilities.

It is important this nation be reminded of the counsel of Justice Keith Massiah in his minority report on the 2004-2005 Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate whether then Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj had any alleged involvement in extra-judicial killings. Though many cheered the phantom squads, Justice Massiah reminded this nation: “Killings, however reasonable and expedient in the opinion of many persons of goodwill, ought not to be countenanced. Even the alleged serial killer, the persistent rapist and the paedophile, detestable as those pariahs are, enjoy the fundamental right to a fair hearing and the full protection of due process. Persons who are thought to have committed crimes must be arrested, charged and tried in a court of law. Nothing less can be accepted.”

Ms Greene, though accused of committing a lesser infraction, is equally entitled to be treated fairly and have her right to due process consistent with time-honoured industrial practices, respected. The temptation to cheer officials’ action regardless of, or use such as cover to attach unrelated issues to justify unfair treatment must be reviewed. When transgressions and violations go unchecked it is only a matter of time before they become pervasive in the society. In such an environment all are affected. The last administration serves as yardstick for the degeneracy that has engulfed this society because officials and friends were enabled in wrong doings from the outset. If we are serious about ridding the society of malpractices, universal principles must be upheld at all times, regardless of who benefits from or is affected by them.

 

Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis

 

Editor’s note

The treatment meted out to Mr Adams, Ms Hamer et al bears absolutely no similarity to the Ann Greene situation. It should also be said that the editorial did not just take the minister’s statement as gospel; as is customary, we heard both sides and sought out witnesses.

Furthermore, contrary to Mr Lewis’s assertion, Ms Greene’s performance and conduct are very relevant to the issue. The editorial’s views on Ms Greene’s performance are a culmination of years of observation of that official’s performance, as well as interaction with her. If due process was not applied then Ms Greene can certainly seek redress through the available channels. The opinion that Ms Greene was out of order stands.