The power of words or who speaks them?

Do you remember the Rex Harrison/Audrey Hepburn film version of My Fair Lady?

There was a scene where Hepburn sang furiously, "Words, Words, Words. I am so sick of words!"

I feel like shouting that sometimes. If only we could trust what we read or sometimes even understand what is reported to have been said.

A reader sent a WhatsApp this week to ask an increasingly pertinent industrial relations question. It has to do with authority, discipline and precedent, with soulfully despairing questions, “What is right? And what is wrong? And what are we supposed to do? When is a refusal to obey an order a breach of discipline, insubordination and a defiance of authority and when can it be defended under the rubric of a constitutional right to freedom of speech?”

What he wanted to know was what happens when a public servant refuses to carry out a policy statement made in public and broadcast at home and abroad by the Prime Minister. Public servants do report ultimately to the PM, don’t they? Or is it the CPO? Or the head of the public service?

If the Prime Minister says that government employees are definitely going to get their four per cent increase and their back pay by Christmas and castigates the arrogance of public employees who "just do what they want, when they want because disobeying the orders of their political masters carries no consequences," surely his words trump everyone else’s?

And having said that, another senior public employee chirps up and says, “That cannot be done before May.” And other, lesser mortals in the employ of the government say flatly: “Well, we can’t do it, and we won’t do it.” And he just says: "Find a way or else." What does a mere mortal do? Precedents made by those in authority used to be what we could count on to guide us. Now we ask what do your words mean? A few days ago, for example, in response to the public outcry over the reported $55 million payout of rent for an unused building, the minister responsible declared, first it was not $600,000 per month rent, it was only $500,000. Only? That’s all right then? Secondly, it was not that the ministry was negligent in monitoring, that was the system. And third, it was not corruption to pay out all those millions for nothing. Not negligence or corruption. Words mean what I say they mean.

So when Venezuela announced that it was laying claim to the Essequibo region in Guyana – some two-thirds of Guyana’s territory, as confirmed by 20th-century treaties and the UN – that is alright then as well? It claims it has historical rights from back in Simon Bolivar’s time. Words mean what Venezuela says they mean? Of course, Bolivar took power over it by force from someone else. Is Venezuela following the example set by Israel? Taking over what little bit of Palestine it has not already annexed since 1946? Annex is not invade. Words mean what Israel says they mean?

Disputes are as infectious as the virus. When a stern prime minister (in the public perception the ultimate employer of all government employees) promised negotiated increases plus back pay by Christmas, and press investigations report public servants claim that the money to fund the promises all at once is simply not there and another report says the PM is fed up of public servants just doing what they want when they want because there are no consequences. He has spoken.

A press statement bewails that government does not have the funds to pay both back pay and the four per cent by Christmas, which Allyson West says the government can afford and other reports quote that public servants, the ones that have to draw up the cheques just say it is not going to happen. They simply cannot do it.

Words! Words! Words! I’m so sick of words meaning what people claim they mean today, not what any dictionary might say.

Disobeying an order by an employer usually results in disciplinary action up to and including termination of the employment contract, but as my conflicted reader asked, “If it is OK to disobey the Prime Minister, when he is your ultimate employer and you don’t get fired for it, does that now become the standard for all employees?"

Can the Industrial Court, also coming under the government budget, give awards in contradiction to defy the Prime Minister's interpretation? Will the employee be able to sue the government for wrongful dismissal? After all, most huge awards for wrongful dismissal in this country are made against one government department or another. There was an announcement of another $3.5 million award in the press last week, for wrongful dismissal to a now wealthy prison officer, providing the government has enough money to pay her.

In a surprise award in another jurisdiction, a Canadian court dismissed an employee’s claim of wrongful dismissal and awarded the employer compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the employee’s misconduct. Mind you, all in accordance with good industrial relations practice, he had been warned several times about some shady deals for which he was supposed to but did not get board permission. What the court saw as the employee’s dishonest and bad-faith conduct continued and he was terminated. He was the acting CEO at the time and had the arrogance, apparently, to assume that he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and not face any consequences. He then sued the board for wrongful dismissal and the case went to court.

The court, which said that he had breached his fiduciary duties was not amused. He spent a million dollars on ten wooden ladders. The court said he had failed in his fiduciary duties, including the duties of care and skill, good faith, loyalty, conflict of interest and safeguarding of property. Apparently in Canada, they take these things seriously.