Young: Don't blame me for $10m damages

NATIONAL Security Minister Stuart Young says there is no truth to allegations that he abdicated his responsibility as minister in the trade dispute between 20 employees of the Security Intelligence Agency (SIA) and the ministry, which was heard before the Industrial Court.

In response to questions from Newsday, Young said on Sunday, “There is no truth in that allegation whatsoever. The Minister of National Security was not a defendant in the action...the Ministry was the defendant.”

On Saturday, the UNC's Roodal Moonilal questioned why the ministry and Young as minister, did not defend the trade dispute last Wednesday where the Industrial Court ordered the ministry to pay damages to the SIA employees amounting to $10 million.

In his response to Moonilal’s statement, Young added, “It was the UNC and in particular, Anand Ramlogan, who fired these workers summarily in breach of all industrial relations principles back in December 2010.

“Ask Anand Ramlogan why he did not file a witness statement defending his actions. As the minister, the wrongful dismissal of these SIA workers had nothing to do with me. Also, the management of the case was never handled by me," Young told Newsday.

In evidence, Ramlogan, who was Attorney General, was said to be the one calling the shots and neither the then national security minister nor the permanent secretary knew what was going on.

“It is unbelievable and incomprehensible,” Moonilal said in his statement on Saturday, that no response was proffered by the ministry and minister to the trade dispute.

“The ministry had full conduct and responsibility for the matter. Shockingly, they filed no defence or evidence and arguments even when the court ordered the Ministry to so do. They allowed the matter to crash. They undermined the case of the state and the Chief Personnel Officer.

“Now having abandoned the interest of the state, the outgoing Prime Minister takes pride in blaming the former People’s Partnership administration for ‘recklessness and institutional ruin’ when they wilfully neglected the state interest,” Moonilal added on Saturday, likening it to the position taken in the Malcolm Jones claim in the High Court for breach of fiduciary duty.

“The Minister of National Security appeared to have 'recused' himself from this as well. Stuart Young must take full responsibility for the $10 million payment ordered,” Moonilal said.

“If the government felt that the case had no merit they could have sought to settle the matter with the aggrieved workers and or even re-employ those affected.

“An intrinsic part of the operations of the Industrial Court is conciliation. At any time if the ministry felt it had no defence, they could have settled the matter," Moonilal said.

In their ruling, Industrial Court judges Sandra Ramparas, Gregory Rousseau and Melvin Daniel held that on the basis of the evidence received and considered, the workers were dismissed in circumstances that were harsh, oppressive and contrary to all basic principles of good and proper industrial relations practices.

In the decision, delivered by Rousseau, the court pointed out that the ministry failed to file evidence and arguments in the matter. The ruling noted that no decision was advanced as to why it failed to comply with the court’s orders.

“Instructively, attorney for the ministry, Mr D (Derek) Ali failed to appear on the 16th January 2019, which was the last date of hearing.

“Neither the ministry, nor Mr Ali, communicated with the court to explain the reasons for their absence, and the non-compliance with the court’s orders,” the decision said.

The Chief Personnel Officer, who was joined as a party on the basis that the CPO was the employer, resisted the application, claiming it was neither informed of the existence of the disputes or of conciliation proceedings at the Ministry of Labour.

The CPO also advanced that the workers’ appointments were not approved by Cabinet and the CPO was not informed of, and played no role, in the determination of the terms and conditions of employment of the aggrieved workers.

The judgment said it was the court’s view that the failure of the ministry to inform the CPO of the disputes was “not the fault of the workers or the court” It also added that as a consequence, the failure by the ministry in no way precluded the court from joining the CPO.