Central Bank guard: ‘I was fired for questioning covid19 breach’

A former estate constable with the Central Bank for the last decade is threatening legal action for victimisation and unfair dismissal after he allegedly raised questions about two social gatherings at the bank in May which were against covid19 regulations.

In a pre-action protocol letter sent to the bank on Tuesday, attorneys for Cpl Bryan Wiltshire said their client intends to file a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission as well as refer the matter to the Ministry of Labour as a trade dispute.

On June 10, Wiltshire was “constructively dismissed” by the bank although he tendered his resignation five days earlier when the CBTT refused to treat with his grievance for alleged victimisation because he raised a complaint about two social gatherings at the bank in May.

Wiltshire said he saw the congregation of people, in excess of 25, in the bank’s parking lot socialising and drinking.

The letter said he formed the view that the gathering was in contravention of the public health regulations which, at the time, prohibited public gatherings of more than five people in a public place.

It said as a diligent estate corporal charged with the responsibility of security at the bank, he reported the gathering to his superior and made a station diary entry of the incident.

The first took place on May 15, while the second on May 22.

On the second occasion, he reported it to his supervisor who said she was aware of the gathering. Wiltshire was allegedly told to “leave it alone.”

On May 22, Wiltshire was told by his superiors they were investigating a complaint against him for unprofessionally protesting against the social gathering.

“Our client denied any unprofessional conduct on his part. In what could only be described as a last-ditch attempt to crucify our client, Insp Ferrier then claimed that our client was being investigated for misbehaviour in public office, and relieved him of his firearm.

“Our client was perplexed and shocked as he had acted with integrity by raising his concerns with his superiors. When told that the social gatherings were sanctioned by upper management, he diligently performed his duties in a professional and responsible manner and complied with the directives of his superiors.

“He was therefore at pains to understand why he was being prosecuted for acting in accordance with his duty to protect the CBTT’s interest.”

On June 4, he was told the bank would not be pursuing any action against him and his firearm was returned to him. He said he told the security manager he felt he was being victimised and the next day he made proposals to the human resource manager to settle his grievance so he could return to regular duties.

His proposals were refused and he was referred to the employee assistance programme to deal with “apparent anxieties” he was experiencing. He then resigned and five days later was told he was “constructively dismissed.”

The letter said the only anxiety he suffered was because of the bank’s “attempt to cover up the fact that it sanctioned a breach of the regulations which, in the context of the need to control the spread of the dreaded coronavirus, was a serious matter.

“He is being unfairly victimised for daring to do the right thing and upholding his oath as a member of the security services.

“He is being punished because he almost interrupted a lime which, though a criminal offence that was in breach of the covid19 regulations, was somehow immune from prosecution.

“This is outrageous,” the letter added.

Attorney Jared Jagroo also said the pre-action letter was being copied to the Commissioner of Police for a formal criminal investigation to be carried out to determine if anyone should be charged for breaching the covid19 regulations or for giving permission for people to break the law.