Section 23(7) adds that the Board “shall
be the sole authority competent to expound upon any matter touching
the interpretation and application of this Act relating to functions
and responsibilities with which the Board is charged by the Act
or any other written law.”
However, Montano and Health Minister John Rahael,
responding to work-to-rule threats by doctors on March 23, intervened
and promised to ask RRCB to “revise” its decision on
MPATT representing more than doctors.
As if to pre-empt protestation over his move,
Montano admitted to the Press that he, and more so Rahael, had
limited powers under the Act and “no leverage” over
RRCB, to which “no directions could be given” because
it is an independent body.
But while assuring that RRCB was not being politically
pressured to give MPATT recognition, the ministers announced intentions
to use their political influence to get the Board to review its
position on MPATT.
They declared having “no problem” with
doctors being represented exclusively by their own registered union”.
“All we are trying to do is facilitate
an arrangement to avoid any disruption in the critical care of
the citizens of TnT,” Montano had said.
RRCB Chairman Clive St. Rose, when contacted
by TnT Mirror, declined comment on the question of the
Minister’s intervention, though all but whistled when referenced
to the Act’s clarity on this.
The issue with MPATT started just over four years
ago when some doctors broke away from the Public Services Association
(PSA-the recognised bargaining unit for all workers in the public
service, including the health sector) and sought to bargain for
themselves.
After some initial clashes with PSA over the
legality of this move, doctors formed the union and applied to
the Board for collective bargaining status for regional health
sector doctors in Trinidad.
Public service and Tobago RHA doctors blanked
MPATT’s move and remained solidly as members of PSA.
MPATT filed separate applications in October
2002, for certification of recognition to represent all doctors
in the Eastern RHA, North-West RHA and South-West RHA.
The Board responded one month later with a query
over the Eastern RHA membership in its bid to determine the appropriate
bargaining unit, among other things.
MPATT was at odds to show there was no community
of interest between doctors and any other category of workers in
the Eastern RHA, which it sought to do by outlining what it called “inherent
differences” between the duties of doctors and other workers.
Still, in its final ruling on bargaining units
for the RHAs last July, RRCB placed doctors in the same category
with the nursing supervisor, area administrator, medical records
officer, internal auditor and others.
This ruling meant that MPATT had to show that
it represents 50 per cent of all RHA workers and not just doctors,
to be granted certification by the Board.
MPATT twice queried this, mostly on the claim
that it had, for five years, been negotiating with and/or recognised
by at least three government ministries, plus Statutory Boards,
as the bargaining unit for RHA doctors only. But the only response
was a reminder about the independence of the Board and the finality
of its decisions.
Furious about this, doctors in November wrote
President Max Richards, the two ministers, the Industrial Court
and all whom they felt should listen, protesting what they called
the Board’s “capricious use of discretion”.
Dissatisfied by the lack of response to its cries
of “dividing our membership and assigning them to groups
with which they share absolutely no commonality of interest” MPATT
announced work-to-rule action on March 23 this year, the “negative
impact” or “untoward consequences” for which,
it said, doctors would not accept blame.
This forced both ministers to agree to meet the
RRCB chairman to discuss a possible “review” of the
decision, albeit not permitted by law. The Act basically limits
the minister to appointing officers and alternates to the Board
and, as far as the Board’s duties are concerned, “such
other matters as are referred or assigned to it by the Minister
or under this and any written law”.
However, a source within the Board, in support
of MPATT’s application, while agreeing that the Ministers’ action
is not permitted, felt it is also within a Minister’s right
to act for the greater good of the country by ensuring doctors
have no cause to bring the health service to its knees.
But the labour leaders have differing views.
“He’s out of place!” said one
labour official who preferred anonymity. “That has nothing
to do with the Ministry of Labour; it has to do with membership.
“I don’t want to create further strife
between the National Trade Union Centre (NATUC) and PSA, which
are independent bodies, especially since the doctors broke away
from PSA to form MPATT, which is a member of NATUC, while PSA isn’t.
“But in order to get that recognition,
MPATT must represent the majority of public servants.
“If doctors are not part of PSA they could
form their own thing. But to move from PSA, the public service
has to agree to it. Other than that, it is difficult to get it.
“You can’t have the minister interfering
to prejudice the whole issue or to ask the Board to violate the
laws of the land.
“You can’t do that.”
On the other hand, NATUC’s President Robert
Giussepi sees the minister’s intervention as a “positive
move”.
“This is the sort of thing we have been
protesting for such a long time. MPATT again highlights the reason
why we should keep protesting. They have the full support of NATUC.
“MPATT has been negotiating with the ministry
for a couple years now for doctors. They have certain types of
agreement for doctors, so when they applied they followed the same
pattern they’ve been pursuing for years for doctors. But
they have been put at a disadvantage when the bargaining unit was
formed because other categories of employees were placed inside
the bargaining unit.”
One Board source further admitted that: “Doctors
do have a distinct community of interest. If you look internationally,
there are doctors unions all about the place.”
Curtis John of the Aviation Communication and
Allied Workers Trade Union (ACAWU) supported the view that the
contending unions -- not the minister -- needed to “sort
themselves out”.
But Aldwin Brewster, President of the Transport
and Industrial Workers Union (TIWU), felt “what the Board
did was totally contrary to other matters that went before it”.
From his understanding, in determining a bargaining
unit, the Board put drivers and messengers in the same unit with
doctors.
“It seems as though it is a deliberate
attempt by the Board to deny MPATT a majority union status,” Brewster
stated.
“That whole matter should be rescinded
and the proper procedure adopted in dealing with the issues.
“You have to remember that, yes the PSA
represents the doctors under the Ministry of Health, but MPATT’s
claim is on behalf of doctors in the RHA and not the Ministry of
Health.
“I know for a fact the law prevents any
appeal against decisions of the RRCB.
“The Act clearly states decision cannot
be appealed, but you have to remember it is the government that
appoints the Board.
“I don’t know how they will deal
with the issue, but it appears as though the Board’s decision
is not in keeping with previous decisions taken in dealing with
recognition issues.
“I know that during the early days of TTUTA
they were given a lot of pressure to get recognition.
“And the Board takes years to grant recognition
to a trade union … a minimum of two years, which is, in
itself, contrary to the whole purpose for which the IRA was established:
It was to bring about industrial peace, have matters industrially
settled and have the question of union recognition more effective.
“But, in reality, that is not so. I don’t
know how they will reverse or deal with that, but the politicians
have a way to get their things done.”
Hollis Alexander, assistant general secretary
of the Oilfield Workers’ Trade Union (OWTU), felt MPATT was
being given preferential treatment, whereby the OWTU has “suffered
at the hands of RRCB in a number of cases”.
“We have waited 20 years for a claim on
AMOCO.
“I’m surprised at the move by the
minister,” he said.
OWTU General Secretary Wendy-Joy Whyte, who was
reportedly one of the dissenting labour voices on the Board in
MPATT’s recognition claim, was unavailable for comment.
