2

Stephen John

Readers who just read the CM’s very cleverly crafted question and answer PR like presentation, will than need to compare what has been written in the question and answers, with that of HM Comptroller.

One of the questions deserve closer examination.

Question
Was the approach favoured by the meeting supported by legal advice?

Answer
Yes it was. HM Comptroller had advised that it was a perfectly legitimate approach to the
problem – his letter of 2 June appended elaborates.

What did the Comproller actually say?

He appears to have been overly influenced by The HR man Elliott’s view that the “financial element of the retention agreement…was not properly classed as remuneration”

This allowed the PSRC to be neatly sidelined as its remit was to negotiate remuneration and conditions of service.

This legal sleight of hand permitted the PSD to negotiate with the firefighters and to settle with them.

What is of interest is that the Comptroller towards the end of his letter says he had second thoughts and saw validity in the argument theat the money paid to the firefighters was indeed remuneration.

Two things stand out from the Comptroller’s letter. The first is the influence of the HR man on his initial opinion, an opinion that opened the door for the PSD and shut the door on the PSRC.

The second is his movement of opinion as he has had time to reflect. The discussion on what is meant by remuneration is the best example.

Yes, the comptroller backed the action of the PSD, but his reflection on the law clearly shows his opinion after that reflection, was not nearly so certain as was his original opinion.

One lesson from this is that when faced with industrial law problems, it is best to look at the law and cases before giving an opinion, rather than reflecting and recognizing the alternative view after the event.

Report abuse

4

Stephen John

Martyn

Even with the clever approach of using questions and answers to ensure you answer only the questions you want to answer, there are number of stumbling blocks that confirm it doesn’t look good.

Question
Did the parties know at that point [that is Tuesady 26 May]when the Industrial Tribunal would be held?

Answer
No. There was clearly a sense of urgency but at the point the meeting concluded the parties did not know whether the Tribunal would be set up in a matter or days or a matter of weeks.

Prolonged closure of the Airport was a distinct possibility. (Advice that the Tribunal would take place on Thursday and Friday that week was received late Tuesday afternoon).

[SJ Note Some will accept this as an excuse for not using the legal process. It looks like a pretty feeble excuse and one that if accepted, seems for the same reasons to rule out any arbitration or tribunal in the future]

Question
What part did the Chief Minister play during the afternoon meeting?

Answer
The Chief Minister and Head of HR listened carefully to what was said, stressed that they were not there to negotiate nor had any power to do so but agreed to take back any messages that the firefighters wished to the PSD, the PSRC and others.

Question
What transpired at the extended EPA meeting?

Answer
As agreed by the Chief Minister the extended EPA meeting met in the Policy Council room at 4.30 pm. [SJ Note this was on the same day as the meeting at the airport. I thought that the objective after the airport meeting was to report back to PSRC etc. Yet, they move into a pre arranged meeting of what the lawyer refers to a a shadow EP]

The detailed discussion and the reasoning behind the resolutions reached will no doubt form the subject of any inquiry, however, the meeting resolved as follows: Members agreed, by a majority of 6 to 1, (Deputy Adams dissenting), to support the Public Services Department offering the airport firemen a sum of money [SJ comment many would argue sum of money, even if temporary, is remuneration] as a ring-fenced, temporary arrangement, separate from their 2009 pay claim, to guarantee full cover for one year, pending a full review of their jobs under a different negotiating team.

SJ Comment The continued references to the EPA gives the impression that that body met as the EPA. However, the Comptroller refers to shadow EPA and stresses that when he asked those Policy Council members who were on the EPA if there was an emergency, the answer was no. This sits a little uncomfortably with the Q and A dialogue that seems to point to an the belief there was an emergency.

Both documents, of the CM and Comptroller, need very careful reading and analysis.

Report abuse