FURTHER industrial action could be the result if the States backs a requete calling for a panel of inquiry into the airport fire fighters’ dispute, it has been claimed.
The requete is signed by 18 deputies, led by Deputy Mary Lowe (pictured), and will be debated next Wednesday.
While there appears to be wide agreement politically that some kind of review is needed into the build-up of action at the airport, just what form that inquiry should take has caused considerable division.
Industrial disputes officer Mick Fooks has warned in a special Billet d’Etat today about the potential time impact of a review at this stage on outstanding negotiations.
‘We also have strong concerns that any summons to attend by parties who may not wish to participate in the process voluntarily could result in further industrial action by way of a protest, or at worst “secondary” action by other related public sector employees,’ he said in a letter commenting on the proposed requete.
‘We must stress, however, that this is our opinion and highlight this to you as a concern which may or may not happen.’
Issues that have blighted pay talks between the airport fire fighters and the Public Sector Remuneration Committee remain unresolved.
‘Any public inquiry or tribunal could, in our opinion, severely jeopardise any talks or negotiations yet to take place and may well undermine the already fragile relationship between the parties.’
The majority of Commerce and Employment members believe the requete brings a ‘significant risk’ of a negative impact on industrial relations so should be rejected.
The Public Services Department, which is responsible for the airport’s operation, had no objections to an independent review, but was not convinced it needed to be a tribunal of inquiry.
‘The main concern is that a legally based tribunal will be less productive and lead to less openness by the participants,’ said Public Services deputy minister Scott Ogier in a letter attached to the requete.
The Scrutiny Committee has already announced that it wants to review what happened.
It has set up a panel of three political members and two non-States members – one an advocate specialising in employment law, the other formerly the national conciliator and director of operations at ACAS (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service).
But it would suspend its review of the States backed another independent inquiry.
PSRC backs the requete, while Treasury and a majority of the Policy Council support an independent review but believe the form was ‘for the States to decide.’
Domestic abuse law Page 5
Comment Page 32
Article posted on 10th July, 2009 - 11.30am
3 Article Comments
Forgive me if I’m wrong but if any of the parties involved are to be summonsed to appear before a legal court, would they not have had to either committed an offence or be called to give evidence for the prosecution or defence of the guilty party.
If so who is to be summoned as the person/s who have committed the offence, AFS, PRSC,UNITE,TROTT? and what offence has been committed.
If i were the one being summonsed i would certainly want to know what it was i am being accused of and may get a criminal record for!! Remember, if any of the fire fighters are being summonsed as a guilty party(they are one party),then if they are found guilty of a criminal offence then they can no longer be special constables and therefore can no longer be employed as fire fighters.
I am sure mr Trott or Brouard would be equally vexed by a criminal record and would be unable to carry on in their respective duties.
I am sure any respecting lawyer would not allow this to get to court.
Think about it!!!!
Report abuse
short&fat vraiceater
Some tribunals have the right to summon witnesses.
Witnesses are not assumed to have committed an illegal act. It is just a fact of life.
It might,and this depends on the exact type of tribunal be contempt to refuse to attend.
The purpose of a tribunal is to seek truth. That is why it frequently has the power to request (without option to decline)those who can assist it get to the truth.
I cannot see any reason for any of the parties to decline to attend a tribunal if they also want the truth.
If Mick Fookes is serious, then it must be a serious worry about what will happen, industrial action wise, when the present temporary agreement runs out in 10 months.
Report abuse
Cheers for that, the talk of a tribunal being held in a court of law has made me wary of the states intentions, after all they like to portion blame if possible without trying to solve the underlying problems.
Report abuse