CLA faces scrutiny over HR practices

The abrupt disbanding of an oversight committee, which had just voted against an applicant who was later hired, has sparked growing unease among workers at the Cannabis Licensing Authority (CLA) about the fairness of hiring and firing practices.

The issue has revived concerns from a troubling survey two years ago regarding staff perceptions of transparency and good governance at the agency, which was established eight years ago to oversee Jamaica’s ganja and hemp industry.

The CLA has not responded to questions from The Sunday Gleaner on the issues.

Established at least three years ago, the Human Resource Executive Committee (HREC) was responsible for making final recommendations on hiring, promotions, and disciplinary actions. Comprising division heads and senior directors, the committee’s recommendations were submitted to the CEO, who held the final decision-making authority.

In January, the committee rejected an applicant who was recommended, after an interview, for the post of director of human resource management and administration, The Sunday Gleaner understands. The committee reportedly cited the applicant’s lack of qualification for the post but suggested that the candidate could be considered for a vacant position in the procurement division.

Shortly after the decision, committee members received a memo from the CEO, advising that the committee was being dissolved, effective January 25. The memo reportedly said the committee’s terms of reference needed to be reviewed. It has not been re-established.

The applicant, who was employed in the post in February, resigned in May.

Human Resource Executive Committees (HRECs) are established “to provide oversight and accountability for the management of human resource functions”, according to the Office of the Services Commissions’ (OSC) 2021 draft terms of reference for establishing HRECs by ministries and departments.

The committees were introduced in the public service shortly after 1999, following constitutional changes that enabled the governor general to delegate specific HR functions to permanent secretaries, department heads, and CEOs of executive agencies. These committees provide advice on appointments, separations, training, and disciplinary matters.

The CLA is not an executive agency, and the extent to which the delegated authority regime applies to it is not clear. The OSC has said it will try to answer questions on the matter this week.

According to the CLA’s Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual, the CEO is “ultimately accountable for the exercise of the human resource management functions of the authority” and “in carrying out such functions, the CEO shall establish accountability mechanisms, to include a Human Resource Executive Committee” headed by a senior director in charge of operations.

The manual took effect on July 30, 2021, the date it was issued. It bears a last revision date of July 5, 2022. It’s not clear whether it has since been updated.

While the CEO has ultimate authority, the policy requires consultation with the committee before major HR decisions. In some instances, such as salary matters, the committee’s prior approval is required. It said recommendations for employment are first to be submitted to the committee before going to the CEO for ratification.

PROLONGED ABSENCE CONCERNING

The committee might not be legally mandatory for the CLA, but best practice makes it important to have one, argued Techa Clarke-Griffiths, president of the Jamaica Civil Service Association, a union that represents more than 30,000 government employees.

She said the committee should not be absent for any extended period.

“It is very important that that committee is, in fact, active. … I know that contract employment is used in some instances as a weapon against employees. So, in the absence of such [a] committee, the contract renewal for members [is] questionable, if it is the decision is taken outside of an HREC,” the union leader said.

The CLA employed 65 persons up to May 24, most of whom are on contract.

There is “nothing wrong” if the head of the entity goes against a recommendation of the HREC, but it cannot be “just because of a personal feeling” or any “arbitrary disagreement”, argued a senior civil servant who has helped with the implementation of HRECs in the public sector.

“The CEO has to refuse based on the established principles and procedures in the public service. Their decisions have to be guided by the Staff Orders, or any circulars from the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service or the public service regulations,” said the official, who did not want to be named, given CLA’s non-response to questions.

“The system was established there for the transparent handling of HR matters. You know that when you have one person deciding, people are very curious and speculative, but when you have four or five persons deciding on a matter, … people feel more comfortable,” the official said.

NO RESPONSE

CLA’s CEO, Farrah Blake, has not responded to questions emailed by The Sunday Gleaner on July 11, asking for the policy behind the committee’s establishment; the reasons for the disbanding in January; whether that move was connected to the vote against the recommended applicant; and when one will be reintroduced, among other things.

Three subsequent requests for answers, including one made last Friday, have not been acknowledged.

The CLA, whose board is chaired by Christopher McPherson, falls under the Ministry of Industry, Investment and Commerce, whose portfolio minister is Senator Aubyn Hill.

The ministry said on July 26 that it “has not received and is not aware of any allegedly bad human resources practices and victimisation” at the CLA.

It said “not applicable” when asked whether it was aware of the disbanding of the committee.

Follow-up questions were submitted to the ministry last Tuesday, asking whether entities under its oversight, such as the CLA, are required to have an HR executive committee, and if not, whether it would recommend it as a best practice.

On Friday, the ministry said the questions should be submitted through the Access to Information Act, a law that gives public bodies up to 60 days to respond to requests.

Following the removal of the HR executive committee, there have been concerns about decisions to employ persons in areas such as client facilitation, administration, and human resources. The concerns revolve around whether new hires meet basic requirements, non-advertisements of positions, and confirmation of persons in posts without interviews.

Since the committee’s disbandment, at least 10 posts have been filled, in addition to a series of reassignments and non-renewal of contracts.

“There’s no one to appeal to and there is no human resource committee for the issues to be ventilated before any decision is taken. That’s what used to give staff a lot of confidence,” one official said on condition of not being named for fear of victimisation. “Now, people are even more afraid to speak out or do anything that will affect their contracts.”

Over the last three months, The Sunday Gleaner has interviewed more than a dozen CLA workers, in addition to several former employees. Most shared concerns about the entity’s operations. A meeting with staff last week where The Sunday Gleaner’s questions were raised left some workers feeling “intimidated”.

“We have been warned and we see what has happened to persons who don’t play the game,” one worker said.

The fear of victimisation was evident in an examination of claims of sexual harassment at the entity.

“You cannot speak out. It’s hard enough to get a contract renewed at that place. Imagine if I should report on some of the favoured ones!” an employee said in May.

Deep-rooted HR issues predate current CEO, survey shows

Some of the concerns about human resource management predate CEO Blake, who took up the position in August 2023, and were flagged in a 2022 internal survey seen by The Sunday Gleaner. It was done by the Consumer Affairs Commission and involved 50 of then 60 employees.

Approximately 60 per cent of the workers strongly disagreed or disagreed that management did not play favourites. They gave an average rating of 5.18 out of 10 concerning their satisfaction with the CLA as an employer.

According to the survey, most employees indicated that the CLA could get better as an employer by improving fairness, and transparency and eliminating favouritism/nepotism, ensuring that staff promotion and recognition were based on hard work and competence, and providing better communication, work culture and environment.

“The recruiting process is a sham as many of the individuals in management are not qualified, neither do they have the necessary skill set to run an organisation, there is no other entity that would accept these individuals on their management team as they have no level of qualification or experience as well as their qualifications are not from recognized institutions,” read a response cited in the survey report.

The CLA must develop a promotion and recognition programme that is transparent and fair, the Consumer Affairs Commission recommended.

“For example, all promotions and recognitions could be reviewed by a board or committee outlining their accomplishments and why the given employee was recommended for recognition or promotion,” it said. This is sure to draw further attention to the absence of the HREC.

The CLA said it “acknowledges the concerns” in the survey and is working “assiduously to improve” its systems in a May 24 response sent by the CEO to Sunday Gleaner questions about the survey.

It said it is trying to improve staff satisfaction and confidence through strategic initiatives such as staff trips and participation in corporate events, and by building out a staff recognition programme.

“The CLA adheres to GOJ (Government of Jamaica) laws, guidelines, and procedures as it relates to recruitment and promotion processes … we believe in a fair and competitive recruitment and promotion process,” it said.

The CLA said it will measure its improvement in the next survey that is scheduled for this financial year, which ends March 31, 2025.

jovan.johnson@gleanerjm.com