The first test
Editorial
When the Public Service strike came to an end in June everyone heaved a collective sigh of relief. After all, we had been teetering drunkenly on the edge of the precipice prior to the signing of the terms of resumption, and it appeared as if we could now indulge some cautious optimism that a measure of order had returned to our disorderly world. That optimism, it seems, may have been somewhat premature. On Tuesday, Chairman of the Arbitration Tribunal, Dr Aubrey Armstrong announced an award based on a majority decision, which a grim-faced Labour Minister hinted might be rejected by the Government. Intimations of possible trouble came on Monday, when at a press conference Dr Armstrong informed the media that the announcement of the pay award which everyone had expected that afternoon, would be delayed by twenty-four hours. He indicated that consensus was lacking and that he had voted with the unions' representative, Dr Clive Thomas, while Dr Gobind Ganga, the Government representative had a dissenting opinion. The twenty-four hour postponement was to facilitate Dr Ganga in the compilation of his separate report. In and of itself that particular news should not necessarily have been a cause for concern. However, there was something else. A visibly perturbed Dr Armstrong said that he had come under "enormous pressure" from the Government, and that he was not for sale, and would not be pressured. On the following day Dr Ganga alleged he had not been told about the final award until it was made public, to which Dr Armstrong responded that the basic framework had been apparent to Dr Ganga even before he walked out of the last tribunal meeting at a quarter to twelve on Tuesday. Dr Ganga's most serious charges against the other members of the tribunal, however, are contained in a dissenting report, which was reproduced in yesterday's Mirror. He questioned their neutrality, said the Terms of Reference had been ignored, that threats had been made to tribunal members and Government officials at the last sitting, that the tribunal was a two-member show, that it was unethical and its proceedings amounted to a "farcical exercise." Minister Jeffrey, rather more measured in tone, stated on Tuesday that at a first glance the award exceeded what the Government "floated it can afford." It was binding, he said, "once all the processes have been legitimately applied," and the Government would have to study the two reports, the context and then take whatever action it needed to take. For their part, Drs Armstrong and Thomas insisted that there had been no breach of procedure; they had been guided by the labour laws (Cap 98(01)) and had had the benefit of legal advice. So what is the public to make of all of this? Prima facie the sequence of events opens the administration to charges that it is seeking to avoid the implementation of the award by allegations that it was not properly arrived at. Direct interference with due process, however, appears not to have come from the union side, but from the Government; whoever it was connected to the administration who tried to pressure Dr Armstrong behaved in a reprehensible fashion and was anything but concerned with legal procedures. One must presume that Dr Jeffrey's implied unease about the tribunal processes not having been 'legitimately applied,' was founded on what had been said or written by Dr Ganga. It has to be said that the latter's language in the Mirror version of his report is not only extraordinarily intemperate, but blatantly denigrates the two other members of the tribunal, particularly, by implication, Dr Armstrong. Words like "farcical" and "unethical" are certainly unacceptable in this context. While Dr Ganga adverts to the fact that his colleagues' neutrality was not a "given", it has to be remarked that Dr Thomas was not supposed to be neutral, any more than Dr Ganga himself. The first was there to represent the unions' interests, and the second, the Government's. And as for Dr Armstrong, he was open to be persuaded by the most compelling arguments from either side. At the point of writing, the case presented by Dr Ganga was not available, and so it is difficult to judge just how unassailable it was. Even if, however, for the sake of argument it could be demonstrated beyond dispute that the majority decision had flaws, that would certainly not be reason to impugn the characters of Drs Armstrong and Thomas; someone can act in good faith and still be wrong. Furthermore, that would not mean either that the legitimate procedures had not been faithfully followed, and in fact absolutely no evidence has been adduced so far to show that they were not. No doubt in the current economic circumstances the Government will be dismayed by the award, but that is no excuse for allowing the public impugning of Dr Armstrong's integrity, which has never been in question over the years and is not in question now. This is the first real test of President Jagdeo's administration, and how he will be judged in the future will partly depend on what he decides to do at this point.
|