Five Port Police officers have filed an injunction against the Port Authority in connection with a move to make them redundant. (IWN photo)

Five Port Police officers have filed an interim injunction against the Port Authority asking the court to halt the Port Authority’s plan to make them redundant on July 31.

The matter is scheduled to come before the court on Tuesday.

The Port Police officers are asking the court to restrain the Port Authority or its agents from bringing into effect the redundancies of any port workers on July 31 until the conclusion of all disputes involving the claimants’ redundancies before the Labour Commissioner, Hearing Officer, and Appeal Board.

The Public Service Union (PSU), which represents Port Police officers, has argued separately that increments are due to the Port Police officers.

Further, the Labour Commissioner had previously ruled that Port Police were entitled to three years’ increments.

The PSU is not a party to the injunction.

The five workers are: Corporal Alson Slater of Glen; Constable Lenroy Douglas of Lodge Village; Constable Thoeodora Joseph of Lowman’s Hill, Constable Anthony Campbell of Diamond, and Constable Collen Charles of Kingstown Park.

The injunction is the latest development in the move by the Government to disband the Port Police in the wake of a one-day sickout earlier this year.

The five workers are claiming, among other things, that the redundancy held pursuant to notice given to the PSU by way of letter dated May 24, 2013 is in contravention of the provision of the Protection of Employment Act.

According to the claim form, on June 24, 2013, the PSU received a letter dated May 24, 2013 from the Port Authority in which the Port Authority “purports that it had protracted and unsuccessful negotiations and consultation with union representatives”.

The workers are also claiming that the Port Authority acted contrary to law, that the PSU has a legitimate expectation to be consulted prior to a decision to make employees of the Port Authority redundant, and that the PSU ought to have been consulted before making their employees redundant.

The claimants are arguing loss of monthly salaries of EC$2,198, EC$1.542, EC$1,512, EC$1,854, and EC$1,516, respectively. They are also claiming loss of benefit of the PSU being able to negotiate and make representations on their behalf to their employers.

They are also claiming that the Port Authority acted without due regard to fairness, due process and the principles of natural justice.

Nicole O.M. Sylvester of Caribbean International Law Firm represents the Port Police.

5 replies on “Port Police file injunction against Port Authority”

  1. Brave men, I warn them to beware the spite and malice that very well may be unleashed on them and their families, beware the Devil Satan the evil Lucifer is at work against you.

    Peter Binose
    Self-appointed keeper of the whistle

  2. Patrick Ferrari says:

    The Prime Minister is the minister for the Port but he said that firing the entire lot – 84 or 85 workers – was a Port decision. Meaning, I suppose, he did not know or could not do anything about it.

    Well okay then.

    Comrade addresses issues on an Eni mini miny moe basis.

    He came to his Speaker’s son’s rescue in the Ministry of Agriculture but the poor people whom he loves so much IN HIS MINISTRY ……

    And Quammie can get all the Port trailers.

  3. It is about time that we as Vincentian stand for justice and fairness in this country. Too much time we have sat on our laurels and accept what is given to us. we are seeing too much wickedness in high places – but the one true God says “vengeance is mine I will repay you”. With this hard economic times why put families out of a work? go to the hills – come on Vincentian are we under a dictatorship regime? the minute you disagree, you are victimized!! Be reminded that what the hierarchy meant for evil the one and true God will turn it into good. Have faith and believe in prayer that all will be well.

  4. Do you believe that Mr Ferarri? Do you believe that firing the entire lot – 84 or 85 workers – was a Port decision? Because I don’t believe for a mini-second or even a Nano-second [by the way any news on Nano?]. All you out there can believe what you like, but I cannot believe a word of a known and confirmed liar.

    Is the PM telling the truth, or is he telling lies. Its dificult to tell when you know the man tells lots of lies, and signs contracts knowing its not worth the paper its written on.

    I would not believe that anyone would dare fire all those people without his direct instruction or with his sanction. More like its his idea to spite those people because they dared ask for the money they were owed. Its my honest belief that he acted after the sick-out to spite those people. To show other workers what will happen to them if they dare ask for their wages or what is long due to them.

    SHAME ON ALL YOU IN THE DIASPORA FOR SUPPORTING THIS MARXIST REGIME.

  5. FERRARI, I have seen your reference to Port trailers in several places. Tell me more, I will investigate and write a report if wrong has been done. Sounds to me like another case of wrong doing in an official position.

Comments are closed.