IN SHAKESPEARE’S rather sexist play The Taming of the Shrew an independently-minded woman is finally broken in spirit and forced to agree that the sun is really the moon, despite the evidence of her own eyes.

‘It’s the moon if I say it’s the moon,’ insists her overbearing husband.

I was reminded of that passage when attending the airport firefighters’ tribunal recently and listening to the farcical argument that the £4,000 annual payment given to the men to return to work wasn’t really remuneration. Apparently, this cash given by an employer to its employees in return for working wasn’t wages.

The Policy Council/PSD tried to reinforce this untenable charade by proposing that no income tax or insurance contributions should be deducted at source. They were quickly told by the tax department that that would not be the case. What a sorry attempt to pretend that black was white to get out of a jam.

It’s easy to understand how tempting such a course of action was to a group of powerless ministers brought together to discuss the disastrous closure of the island’s airport. Guernsey’s economy and reputation were being damaged by the hour because the firefighters had decided to withdraw cover rather than put their grievances before an independent tribunal for resolution.

In the charged atmosphere of the ‘Shadow Emergency Powers Authority’, all focus was on how to get them back to work. The chief minister and the head of HR had the answer. They’d met the men and brought back the message that a payment of £4,000 each would do the trick.

The only problem was that neither the ‘Shadow EPA’ nor the PSD had the power to make such a payment if it was deemed ‘remuneration’. Only the Public Sector Remuneration Committee had the authority to temporarily increase wages in this way. So the first step was to bring its chairman, Deputy Al Brouard, to the meeting and try to persuade him to do the deed.

‘No way, Jose,’ replied Big Al. ‘Both PSRC and PSD have already rejected that particular demand.’

So now things were really getting desperate – but then somebody had an inspired idea.

‘If we pretend these extra wages aren’t wages at all, then PSD can pay them without the agreement of the PSRC.’

To paraphrase the Bard: ‘’Tisn’t remuneration if we say ’tisn’t remuneration.’

To be fair, things were at a desperate pass but if this group of ministers decided they wanted to override departmental mandates to resolve a crisis, and hang the political consequences, then they should have had the courage to do just that.

In my opinion, they would have been wrong, but I can understand the counter argument.

However, the shallow pretence that they were acting within proper States procedures was pretty shabby. It doesn’t matter what any advisor may have told them – if they can’t recognise remuneration when it stares them in the face, they have no business being ministers.

I have no idea what the tribunal of inquiry will decide. Hopefully that the States needs to update its processes for determining public sector pay.

However, whatever system is selected it won’t remove the possibility of impasse if employees prefer strong-arm tactics to the agreed formula for dispute resolution. So emergencies could arise again.

Hopefully the tribunal will also suggest better ways for the States to deal with such crises, but whatever the political structure, the practical choices will remain similar. If the only remedy is ‘in case of emergency smash glass and reach for cheque book’, then any idiot can implement it.

Another interesting fact to emerge in evidence was that in the face of complaints of excessive overtime and poor work/life balance from the firefighters, the PSD had offered to bring in a few trained staff from the UK to ease the situation. This patently reasonable suggestion was never implemented because the men objected. I’m not sure on who this reflects worse – the firefighters or the airport management. Who is in charge?

What is crystal clear after attending a few sessions of the tribunal of inquiry is that – professional though it is – it’s the wrong body to consider these matters. Whether it’s mandates being breached, States resolutions being ignored, the best way to settle pay, how to cope with emergencies – all of these are inherently political rather than legal issues.

A proper scrutiny inquiry, held in public, with independent experts drafted onto the panel, could have gone into these political questions in real depth, more quickly and at lower cost.