#BTEditorial – A bitter sweet farewell, Justice Blackman

People who have loved and lost tend to compare their new prospect with their previous partner. It is all about perspective. We know it is unfair to compare but it is intuitive.

The scenario is relatable to the recently announced exit of the esteemed retired Justice Christopher Blackman from the position of Chairman of the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT).

His departure took effect March 31, and came as a surprise to many, since the public was unaware that Mr Blackman was intending on demitting office.

Justice Blackman has been an exemplary chair of this quasi-judicial body established to ensure that unfair dismissal matters were addressed quickly,  and away from the log-jammed court system where matters can easily languish for more than a decade without being fully adjudicated.  

When Mrs Carter from Eagle Hall loses her job as waitress in a hotel or the clerk at a commercial bank, such persons cannot be left to wonder if their cases will be addressed 10 or 15 years later. They want any compensation that is rightly due to them and a declaration that they have been wronged.

On the other hand, a company or organisation wants complaints of unfair dismissal against it addressed speedily and therefore minimise any reputational damage that will occur.

An experienced, even-handed, and respected member of the judiciary, Justice Blackman not only delivered several far-reaching ERT decisions, but he did so at a rate that defied the paucity of resources provided to that office.

In fact, Mr Blackman was not shy about his disappointment with the limited provisions for the Tribunal, a situation that contributed to its growing backlog. Ironically, one of the same circumstances which the ERT’s establishment was designed to eliminate, was afflicting the institution.

It was the former ERT chairman, for example, who decried the absence of a home from which the body could operate and not be a nomadic entity shifting from office to office.

He must certainly be satisfied that the ERT is to be housed in the new Henry Forde and David Simmons Legal and Judicial Complex on Coleridge Street, Bridgetown.

Justice Blackman is a former non-resident Appeal Court judge in Belize and Chairman of the CARICOM Competition Commission. He has also served as an Appeal Court Judge in The Bahamas.

However, it is bitter sweet that Justice Blackman is leaving the chairmanship of the ERT after his appointment in 2018. His judgements have been sound, and as far as we are aware, none of his ERT rulings have been successfully appealed by either employers or complainants.

The former chairman is leaving to concentrate on the work of the island’s Constitution Reform Commission (CRC), which was created to help shape an improved constitution for the world’s newest republic.

It was in this editorial space that concern was raised about the judge’s work load simultaneously serving as chairman of the ERT and the CRC.

The CRC’s responsibility is weighty and the timeline for completion is ambitious. Much is riding on the outcome of the CRC’s assignment, and we expect that Justice Blackman, and his fellow Commissioners will do an excellent job.

“It has been my honour to have served as chairman of the Employment Rights Tribunal over the past four and a half years.

“Regrettably, the several issues which I have canvassed for or worked upon over that time, including the provision of a dedicated space for the work of the Tribunal, the enactment of rules for the Tribunal and amendments to the Employment Rights Act, continue to be works in progress,” he was quoted in the media.

Justice Blackman stated he had given prior notification to the Minister of his plan to leave the ERT since September last year.

We wish Justice Blackman every success in his work to provide recommendations on a new constitution.

We await a new chair on whom the country will rely to erase the backlog of cases before the Tribunal. The country cannot afford to have the ERT mirroring the various maladies that currently afflict the court system. This would hurt the people who can least afford it – those who have lost their employment and source of income.