Sunday, October 4 2009

Why was Cabinet able to act so swiftly with respect to its having the relevant line Ministers of the Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago (TSTT) and the Public Transport Service Corporation (PTSC), two State Enterprises, reconsider moves to decertify trade unions representing their workers, yet did nothing when Udecott, itself a State Enterprise, moved counter to Government’s policy in tacitly seeking to halt the Uff Commission of Inquiry?

As early as April Udecott (Urban Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago) had moved to have the Inquiry halted but was unsuccessful. Later it issued a pre-action protocol letter, dated July 24, calling on all four members of the Uff Commission of Inquiry into the construction sector to step down on the basis of apparent bias in yet another attempt to have the Inquiry halted. The Cabinet can’t claim, as it did in respect to TSTT and PTSC that it didn’t know.

There is a noticeably wide gap in the time it took Cabinet to act on the TSTT and PTSC issues, less than a week, and its period of inaction with regard to the initial move by Udecott — April 30. In late September TSTT and PTSC filed separate applications to the Industrial Court to have the Communications Workers Union (CWU) relieved of its rights to negotiate on behalf of telecommunications services workers and the Transport and Industrial Workers’ Union (TIWU) relieved of its rights as well to represent bus workers. Of interest is that the Ministry of Labour, mere hours later in a statement which appeared not to frown on either the action of the TSTT or that of the PTSC noted that it would seem as though the respective State Enterprises had grounds for their actions.

“It is an interesting development, but I would imagine that the organisations’ signal to seek decertification would suggest a loss of confidence in the will of the unions to conduct appropriate and fair negotiations according to good industrial relations practices,” Minister of Labour, Rennie Dumas commented in an interview with Newsday which inferred, if not outright approval, then certainly not official disapproval.

Was it follow up protests by the trade unions involved and the Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union as well, with their political implications, that prompted Government to act to halt the decertification process? What then about the taxpayers’ freely and widely expressed views on the goings-on at Udecott?

But while the moves by the TSTT and the PTSC had not been frowned upon by the Labour Minister in his interview with Newsday, nor publicly by any of the line Ministers and clearly had not been in conflict with declared Government policy, Udecott, nonetheless, was, through its actions stated earlier in moving to have the Inquiry into the construction sector halted, in direct conflict with Government policy.

The Industrial Court, which was established under the Industrial Relations Act, would have been called upon to determine the outcome of the applications of the TSTT and the PTSC and would have done so on the basis of what was adduced at the hearings. In other words de-certification was not a fait accompli. Nevertheless, Government’s action may have unwittingly conveyed this impression to some minds. To others it would have been because of Government’s fear of a political fallout. Perhaps Government would seriously consider acting with the same dispatch on pressing matters.

Why, then, did Cabinet not act earlier when it must have been made clear to it that a State Enterprise, Udecott was seeking to have an Inquiry, appointed by no less a person than the President of the Republic, halted?

It is not without reason to assume that had Public Transport sought to halt a Presidential appointed Commission of Inquiry its management would have been rapped on the knuckles. Yet nothing had been done all these months allowing Udecott to appear in the public’s mind as the decision taker.

The government should know that such action only reinforces public perception that Udecott is untouchable. The question is why?