 |
| William Joseph |
A top civil servant in Grenada is taking his political boss, Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell to court for allegedly humiliating him in the Public Service.
The action was filed by Permanent Secretary in the Department of Labour in the Ministry of Labour, William Joseph against the Prime Minister and four other Cabinet Ministers - Clarice Charles, Brenda Hood, Anthony Boatswain, and Elvin Nimrod.
The legal papers were filed in the Supreme Court Registry on November 23 by attorney-at-law, Cajeton Hood, himself a former Permanent Secretary under Mitchell’s governing New National Party (NNP) administration.
At the centre of the controversy is the manner in which Joseph was treated by government when he returned to the public service earlier this year from assignment as Director of Tourism with the state-controlled Grenada Board of Tourism (GBT).
Joseph is complaining that of suffering humiliation, as well as “loss of reputation” and “loss of job satisfaction and enjoyment since he was treated rather shabbily by the Mitchell government.
He is seeking a declaration from the court that the “deeds and/or misdeeds” of Prime Minister Mitchell and his Cabinet colleagues were conceived “with malice and in bad faith” towards him.
Following are details of the court papers as filed by attorney Hood and obtained by this newspaper:
 |
| Cajeton Hood |
The Claimant (William Joseph) is, and was at the material time, a Permanent Secretary in the Public Service of the Government of Grenada having been thus appointed in or about the year 1991.
The Claimant is and was at the material time the most senior of the 14 serving Permanent Secretaries in the Public Service of the Government of Grenada on account of his date of appointment and having served as Permanent Secretary in the following Ministries: Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Tourism, Civil Aviation and Cooperatives, Legal Affairs and Labour, and Communication and Works.
Further, the Claimant’s curriculum vitae established that he is a highly trained and experienced Officer who is eminently qualified to hold the post Permanent Secretary in the Public Service.
In or about the month of July 1995, when the First Defendant (Keith Mitchell) first assumed office as Prime Minister, the First Defendant, citing lack of trust and confidence in the Claimant, caused the Claimant to be sent on leave from his posting at the time as Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture.
The First Defendant (Prime Minister Mitchell) acted as he did because he perceived that the Claimant was not a supporter of the political party of the First Defendant.
Subsequently, the First Defendant publicly accepted in Parliament and otherwise that his treatment of the Claimant was wrong and acknowledged the competence and professionalism of the claimant.
The Claimant returned from leave in or about the month of February 1996 and was transferred to the post of Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Tourism.
In or about the month of October 1999, the Claimant, then the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Tourism, agreed to the request of the Board, which was approved by the Cabinet comprising the defendants, for the Claimant to be seconded to the Board in the capacity of Director of Tourism on a fixed term contract of 3 years duration.
The said contract began on November 1st 1999 and was renewed in the month of October 2002 for the same duration.
In or about the month of March 2005, the Claimant and the Directors of the Board discussed a further renewal of the Claimant’s contract.
The Directors of the Board agreed with the Claimant that a further renewal of contract of 1 year’s duration would be appropriate in the circumstances and sought the approval of the Minister responsible for Tourism in keeping with the provisions of the Tourist Board Act.
The Second Defendant (Brenda Hood) refused to give approval not giving a reason for her decision. The refusal was communicated to the Claimant in a letter from the then Chairman of the Board dated July 25th 2005.
According to the terms of the seconding of the Claimant, upon termination or expiry of his contract with the Board, the Claimant would revert to a position in the Public Service that was at least on par with the position that he had occupied before being seconded.
In the premises, the timing of the decision not to renew the contract of the Claimant with the Board gave the First Defendant and his Cabinet sufficient time to fulfill the attendant obligation of securing a place for the Claimant in the Public Service.
In fact there was ample time to make adequate provisions for the reinsertion of the claimant into the Public Service through the annual budget exercise.
Upon expiry of his contract with the Board, the Claimant was required to proceed on vacation leave at the conclusion of which he was appointed as Permanent Secretary, Department of Labour in the Ministry of Education and Labour on March 16th 2006 the Cabinet purported to create the post of PS Labour on February 27th 2006 with the specific purpose of appointing the Claimant thereto.
The post of PS Labour is regarded in the Public Service and in the general public as one reserved for persons who are out of favour with the First Defendant (Keith Mitchell) and his Cabinet of Ministers and targeted for frustration, given the low level in the volume and complexity of the work to be done in the post of PS Labour.
The Claimant avers that his purported appointment to the post of PS Labour was improper and unlawful given that no Department of Labour, as intended by the Constitution, was in existence at the material time.
Additionally, no or no proper procedures had been followed for the creation of the post and no or no proper vote had been created for the intended Ministry or Department of Labour.
The absence of a vote as pleaded above suggests that there was no or no proper basis for the discharge of the supervisory functions of the office of Permanent Secretary as envisaged in the Constitution.
Further, at the time of the appointment of the Claimant to the post of PS Labour another public officer was occupying the post of PS Labour.
The Claimant avers that he was appointed to the post of PS Labour because the Defendants had maliciously targeted him for frustration through the meting out of discriminatory and other improper treatment.
Further, the Claimant avers that the acts of the Defendants were calculated to cause the Claimant to seek retirement from the Public Service or make application to the Public Service Commission and/or the courts to have him deemed as having been constructively dismissed from his post.
The Claimant, at the material time, had already completed enough of years of service as a Public Servant to ensure the grant of maximum pension and gratuity rights.
Further, the Claimant has written and copied several letters to persons holding senior established offices in the Public Service in an effort to bring his situation to their attention with the hope of some intervention on his behalf.
These offices include the Cabinet Secretary, the Permanent Secretary in the Department of Human Resources, Permanent Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office, the Chief Personnel Officer in the Public Service Commission, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, the Personal Assistant to the Governor General.
In his letters the Claimant has complained about the manner in which he had been treated and several features of his appointment.
Among the various items of correspondence generated on the issue are the following:
(1). On March 23rd 2006 in a letter to the Cabinet Secretary the Claimant commented inter alia about:
(a) The fact that the department was not in the 2006 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure.
(b) That it did not seem to exist at the time
(c) There was no independent vote for the department
(d) He was in effect being made subordinate to the PS Education
(e) The absence of standard manpower provisioning
(f) The absence of standard materials, facilities and courtesies
(g) The appearance of discrimination against him
(h) The fact that as the most senior PS he was being assigned the most obscure post.
On June 14th 2006 the Claimant again wrote to the Cabinet Secretary and copied the letter to the PS, PMO, PS Finance and Planning, PS DHR, Chief personnel Officer and the President, Public Workers’ Union, arguing inter alia that:
(a) He had been appointed to a defective ministry in that he had no vote to be administered, no secretary, no administrative officers to deal with personnel and financial matters and no direct telephone service.
(b) No real work was required of him
(c) It was wrong for the PS Education to be operating as the Accounting Officer for the Department of Labour.
On June 22nd 2006 the Claimant wrote to the Chief Personnel Officer for the attention of the Public Service Commission in which he argued inter alia that:
(a) There could not be the simultaneous appointment of a PS Labour as well as a Permanent Secretary, Education and Labour;
(b) The clear intimation that the PS Labour was being obviously subordinated to the Permanent Secretary, Education and Labour.
On June 26th 2006 the Claimant wrote to the PS, DHR noting, inter alia that:
(a) Since the creation of the post of PS, Labour and his appointment thereto no other action has been taken;
(b) There was a need to create administrative positions within the Department for its proper operations and to ensure its independence;
(c) There was need for intervention so that a proper vote for the department could be created.
On July 4th in a memorandum to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance the Claimant enquired inter alia about:
(a) The existence of a vote for the Department of labour;
(b) The identity of the Accounting Officer for that vote;
(c) The involvement of the PS, Labour in the process.
On August 2nd the Claimant wrote to the Personal Assistant to the Governor General copied to the PS PMO, PS Finance, and PS DHR as well as the Chief Personnel Officer and the Cabinet Secretary in which he noted inter alia that:
(a) To date he had not been enabled to perform any significant functions of the post of PS Labour
(b) He had been the object of discrimination by attempts to subordinate him to the Permanent Secretary Education, by the failure to advise him of the vote for which he was responsible and by the failure to provide administrative staff;
© It was apparent that his transfer was conceived in mischief and designed to procure his retirement.
On August 29th 2006 the Claimant again wrote to the PS, DHR commenting on memoranda from the PS DHR dated August 11th 2006 and August 25th 2006 which showed the PS Labour as the only additional staff member in the Department of Labour for 2006.
The Claimant noted interalia that:
(a) The provisions showed a marked departure from understandings arrived during a meeting of July 7th between the parties
(b) There was a failure to obtain approval for the structure agreed to
(c) The requirement that the PS Labour share the Secretary with others amount to discriminatory treatment.
On August 30th 2006 the Claimant again wrote to the PS, DHR further commenting on a memorandum from the PS DHR dated August 25th 2006 to the effect that:
(a) The post of PS Labour could not be a part of the 2006 Estimates until the Minister for Finance had taken the appropriate action in Parliament since the post was created after the passage of the said 2006 Estimates.
(b) The PS DHR did not know the status of Vote 14, the vote to cater for the proper functioning of the Department of Labour.
The defendants have failed or refused to provide the Claimant with any or any proper or genuine response to his several queries that he has so far raised in his letters and memoranda.
In the premises, the Claimant avers that the deeds and/or misdeeds, complained of above by the defendants and all of them, were conceived by the Defendants with malice and in bad faith towards the Claimant.
By reason of the deeds and/or misdeeds of the Defendants the Claimant has suffered loss and damage
Particulars
(a) Humiliation;
(b) loss of reputation;
(c) Loss of job satisfaction and enjoyment.
And the Claimant Claims:
(1) a declaration that the Defendants and all of them by the facts herein before referred to are liable for misfeasance in public office;
(2) An order that the Claimant be paid damages, including exemplary and punitive damages, as a consequence of damages which he has suffered on account of the deeds and/or misdeeds of the Defendants.
