IT IS IN nobody's interest for ongoing tribunal proceedings relating to public-sector wages to be dragged out until the end of the current fiscal year.

But precisely that outcome now arises, given the position taken by all of the parties, including trade unions, on Monday at a case-management conference held before the Industrial Court.

Representatives of five top trade unions initially agreed for special tribunal proceedings triggered by Minister of Finance Colm Imbert to be consolidated in the interest of time.

However, they later reversed that position, resulting in court officials scheduling consecutive hearings for each labour grouping: civil servants, police, fire officers, teachers and prison officers. The envisioned timeline will see hearings from January to June.

This makes no sense.

It is understandable that each union or association would wish to state individual cases for its membership, given that every profession is different and is undergoing its own set of unique challenges.

However, there is no reason why these differences and nuances cannot emerge through arguments and submissions before the tribunal (which is an adjunct of the Industrial Court, established under statute).

And whatever the differences between each set of workers, the tribunal must be guided by exactly the same set of basic factors in each case.

It must weigh the need to maintain and increase current employment levels; to give workers a fair share of productivity yields; to reflect reasonable differences in skill levels; to improve the standard of living of workers; to ensure the competitiveness of TT; and to ensure the continued ability of the Government to finance spending.

These are issues now before the tribunal and it is for the tribunal to determine them.

However, given the profound public-interest implications of the procedural position taken on Monday, we are constrained to observe that a needlessly prolonged process will be inimical to all the parties involved, not only trade unions.

With wage negotiations already delayed, workers will not benefit from even more time elapsing. As unions themselves have observed, with each passing day, the purchasing power of their membership is on the decline, given cost-of-living increases.

The Government, too, stands to lose. Having based its four per cent offer on a range of factors, including the uncertainties attending the global economic situation, the prospect of this matter stretching out should fill it with dread. It simply adds more uncertainty and makes fiscal planning harder.

The fact that the tribunal has been convened itself makes plain the time-sensitive nature of all the issues. (The tribunal is only convened when no agreement is reached within a specific timeframe.)

Even the court, which has limited resources, loses out if things are inefficiently dealt with.

The parties should reconsider this issue.