It is not often that questions are raised over the truth of media reports about industrial relations.
Reports from Standard and Poor's new rating for Trinidad and Tobago - now BBB- down from A - were termed both positive and negative.
The Minister of Finance says it is positive. The former head of the Central Bank says a BBB- is negative but who's counting?
But surely, industrial relations is governed by law which has been the remit of designated experts in industrial relations, and written out, for all to be guided by, in judgements given by members of the Industrial Court.
Because industrial relations is not on all fours with civil law, the authority to make those decisions was given by Parliament to a separate court - the Industrial Court - and the governing act states very forcefully, in reference to one of its jurisdictions - namely decisions in reference to compensation for unjust dismissals - that: 'any order for compensation or damages…shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called into question in any court on any account whatsoever.'
This is an immense power not even given to the head of state, but is given to the Industrial Court.
This immense power is not given for everything. It is only given in relation to cases regarding dismissals and compensation therefore, but it gives you an idea of the importance given to its function by Parliament.
On July 21, a decision that is of immense importance to every board of directors in TT, every employer, manager, trade union, or stakeholder was made, at least, according to the media.
That significant decision, however, was not taken by the Industrial Court. It was taken by the Court of Appeal.
The issue involved the appointment on promotion of a man to the position of general manager, quality risk management, of the North Central Regional Health Authority (NCRHA), a position for which he had not applied and in which he had never previously acted (according to the press report), but to which the NUGFW decided he should be promoted.
It was the trade union that brought the case to court last May, claiming the NCRHA was negligent in bypassing Mr Elroy Julien for the position.
Mr Julien, at the time the union raised the issue, was CEO of the National Self Help Commission, a higher-status position (according to the press report).
That should raise a very red flag. As should the fact (according to the press report) that when the matter could not be settled in mediation at the Industrial Court, the accepted body to determine industrial relations matters, it was sent to, and accepted by, the Appeal Court.
Since when, stakeholders are asking, does a trade union have the right to decide who should be the manager of an enterprise?
Anyone over the age of 18 can join a trade union, so perhaps Mr Julien has been a member of NUGFW since he was 18, but trade unions are there to defend workers' interests in the Industrial Court, not those of managers, according to Section 3 (3) of the IRA.
That section defines a manager by sa
