Unhappy Gollop tears into NCC lawyer

A visibly frustrated chairman of the Employment Rights Tribunal Hal Gollop, QC, yesterday afternoon condemned the behaviour of legal counsel for the National Conservation Commission (NCC) for persistently setting back the hearing into the contentious retrenchment of some 200 NCC workers.

Tribunal Chairman Hal Gollop, QC
Tribunal Chairman Hal Gollop, QC

For the second time in as many days, resumption of the hearing had to be adjourned – indefinitely, this time – because the commission’s lawyer Mitchell “Mitch” Codrington failed to turn up and asked for a deferment.

These latest postponements came after a more than two-month hiatus during which time the tribunal contended it had been doing its best to have the hearing recommence, but was unsuccessful because attorneys had issues with their scheduling.

Gollop was even more peeved when Codrington failed to attend today’s sitting even though “we were given the assurance after a request for an adjournment by counsel for the Commission that he would be available today.”

Gollop referred to a letter from Codrington that was hand-delivered to him yesterday requesting another adjournment because there had been no significant improvement in his condition.

“This is the fourth time that an adjournment has been sought on behalf of the Commission. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. It has gone beyond the bounds of reasonableness,” an upset tribunal head said.

He lamented that the law was not clear on whether or not the hearing could continue unless everyone was present, and suggested that now was the time for Parliament to amend the relevant Act to address this issue.

“It is about time that some of these lacunae [gaps] were addressed, and that is one of them. If the tribunal is to do its work, there cannot be this level of unreasonableness in respect of the parties involved – and notice I said the parties involved – because it is the responsibility of the parties to see that their counsels are present; and they should be present at all times,” the Queen’s Counsel strongly suggested.

The judicial body’s chairman also tore into Codrington for his recommended alternative dates for the hearing. The NCC attorney said he would be available on December 23, 24, 29 and 30.

“Mr Codrington has suggested some dates which are available to him. Personally I think the suggested dates are unreasonable and do not take into consideration that a tribunal like this functions on the efforts and responsibilities of public servants . . . I must express my absolute abhorrence that this could be suggested to a tribunal that is sitting in
an important matter like this and has been making every effort to get this matter heard and concluded,” an angry Gollop said.

Directing his concluding remarks to General Manager of the NCC Keith Neblett and counsel for complainant Cutie Lynch, he cautioned that such behaviour was unsatisfactory and would no longer be tolerated.

NCC General Manager Keith Neblett
NCC General Manager Keith Neblett

Gollop said dates would be set on which the hearing must proceed and that it was up to the parties involved to ensure they were represented by their attorneys.
“It is their duty to choose which counsel they want and have them here present,” he added.

Gollop then turned his attention to the attorney for Lynch and by extension the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) Paterson Cheltenham, who he accepted had requested adjournments on humanitarian grounds and had been accommodated.

“But on the other hand, Mr Cheltenham made it quite clear early that he would be able to proceed, when we thought he might not be able to, and he is here and his other associate was here yesterday,” the tribunal chairman pointed out.

Asked to comment on Gollop’s remarks, Neblett said he noted the concerns of the tribunal and would inform the board of management when they meet tomorrow.

However, while stating that he could not speak for management’s attorney, he told the tribunal he wanted the matter resolved quickly.

“I am ready,” he stressed.


4 Responses to Enough!

  1. Veroniva Boyce
    Veroniva Boyce December 18, 2015 at 1:48 am
  2. Tony Webster December 18, 2015 at 6:13 am

    Righteous Indignation? Cud be. However, I perceive…and believe…that there is a whiff…a little whiff…of melodrama here…and pantomime…and possibly even a dash of really , really bad faith. Check carefully, exactly what’s in the mortar, to make up this particular batch of Jug-Jug!

    Poor workers…just grist…for the mill. In the Year-of-Our-Lord…2015..in Beautiful Barbados, where almost nothing…is Beyond Your Imagination.

  3. jrsmith December 18, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    I agree with ,MR,Gollop, a dam lot of attorneys, in Barbados ,have no character. behaviour as mickey mouse, they carry the American ghetto attitude with them,.. but they believe they are the best thing since slice bread.

    I myself, I need some lawful business done on a family’s behalf in Barbados, and I am dreading ,finding a decent attorney. I have a decent solicitor and a lawyer in the UK, wish I could have them brought to Barbados to do my business. Would mind paying what ever it costs.

  4. dave December 19, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    This DLP Government is so bad and their operatives are so disgustingly nasty , it is a shame. Will we recognize Barbados after these idiots finish with it ? Methinks not


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *