News Feed

October 27, 2016 - United win Manchester derby Juan Mata struck to win a tight Man ... +++ October 27, 2016 - IAAF wants Bolt’s services KINGSTON, Jamaica – IAAF Pres ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Proper shutdown protocol needed, says Bynoe The Department of Emergency Managem ... +++ October 27, 2016 - ‘Out of touch’ Economist Ryan Straughn says the la ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Lowe looking to protect the south coast A senior policymaker has warned tha ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Road Hockey 5s hit halfway mark After three weeks of competition th ... +++

Tribunal bans recordings of PR matter

The news media has been banned from recording any future hearings of the Employment Rights Tribunal in the “unfair dismissal” case of Jasmine Valerie Payne, a former public relations and marketing officer with the state-owned Barbados Vocational Training Board (BVTB).

Ryan Omari Drakes, the chairman of the tribunal, which is taking evidence in this matter, announced this afternoon on the second day of the case at the Warrens Officer Complex, St Michael that both parties involved in the hearing expressed concerned that because of the sensitive nature of the proceedings, they did not feel comfortable having the evidence video taped, audio taped or photographs taken.

However, the chairman sought to make it clear that he was not barring the media from being present and reporting on the proceedings, only restricting the use of any type of recordings and photos.(EJ)

3 Responses to Tribunal bans recordings of PR matter

  1. Lawrence Griffith
    Lawrence Griffith April 16, 2016 at 5:27 am

    Well that’s how many people get ahead in life. But instead of accepting defeat she’s willing to turn wrong into right. I don’t think she’s actually right in her head from reading her testimony..

  2. lennox hewitt April 16, 2016 at 6:31 am

    She can’t be right in she head in dont no what she smoke but she not right in she head i no fellas went for jobs and cause there did not have qualification from polytecnic cuold not get the job so she only joking she lucky cause if she were sueing in court of law she would end up paying cost

  3. Sue Donym April 16, 2016 at 9:51 am

    I can understand if recording devices were proving to be a distraction or disruptive, but wouldn’t we rather that the reporting was accurate? I know that occasionally there might be something ordered to be struck from the record, but that doesn’t stop it being heard if the proceedings are open to the public. It is for those deliberating to disregard or not to factor it into their decision. Are there provisions for closed sessions in the event that there is expected to be disclosure of a sensitive nature?


Leave a Reply

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