Dear Editor,
I must confess that I enjoy the debate proffered by a respected colleague – George N Cave ‒ as to whether or not there is a totally integrated institution identified as ‘the government’.
It occurred to me that there can be a further debate as to whether or not in organisations the whole is the sum of its parts, and consequently whether or not in the instant case the law creating its constitutional components did not intend or expect the latter to represent the government as a whole, and be accountable on its behalf for the discharge of the duties and responsibilities assigned thereto.
Is or is not the Public Service Commission the government’s legally appointed employment agent, moreso with authority to decide on the gamut of conditions of such employment (within policy guidelines) along with the decision-making capacity to terminate such employment (albeit without ‘government’ advice)?
The question may therefore be posed (for our shared information) as to who, in the instance of a perceived breach of employment contract, will address the public employee’s complaint.
Incidentally in the private sector, for example, it is the Director of Human Resources who would advise authoritatively the organisation, and implement the full range of employment (including disciplinary) procedures. There is little, if any, ambiguity about where the competent authority lies.
Incidentally, I might have missed it, but I do not recall even coming across in the management literature any descriptor such as ‘appointer’ in the context of this discussion.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
