Ver loss of trust, confidence in Commission by former Chair for outside work

Patterson who granted it in writing.

Dazzell said that subsequently, Patterson himself asked her to attend to a number of matters unrelated to the business of GECOM—one of which she said involved a Church before the Land Court. Pursuant thereto, she said that Patterson introduced her to the secretary of the Church and asked her to handle the matter.

The former legal officer said that as she had previously done in seeking written permission for the incomplete matter she had before the court, she asked Patterson for a similar letter, but he told her that it was not necessary.

Dazzell said that when she attended court for the matter sometime in February of 2019, she saw Shadick who also saw her. Dazzell said that Shadick asked her nothing, and she said nothing to her either; while noting that until now, nothing had ever been said for two years.

“To my mind, the Commissioner’s conduct of saying or doing nothing gave credence to the Chairman’s words that it was not necessary” Dazzell said she reasoned.

She went on to detail in her letter that on another occasion, Patterson who desired to purchase a property, introduced her to the vendor and gave her a file and asked her to also deal with that matter.

Strange question

According to her, he then subsequently asked her what she described as a “strange question,” by which she said she was taken aback. Dazzell said that the thenChairman enquired from her, her relation to Shadick of which she said her response to him was that prior to being in the Commission’s employ, she had only known Shadick by occasionally calling on her services as a Commissioner of Oaths to Affidavits.

According to Dazzell, for some reason Patterson disbelieved her and retrieved the file. She said that his retrieval of the file was not because it was “prohibited by my contract”, but by his belief that I was somehow closely affiliated with an opposition Commissioner (as she then was) in the political context.”

The former legal officer said that it was at that point she “realised that seeds of malevolence had been sown in the Chairman’s mind against me.”

From then on, she said that Patterson stopped calling on her to do any work, whether GECOM related or not, but that she nonetheless continued working for the Commission, which comprised mostly of minute taking “and I continued to do other legal work with the clearest of conscience.”

Regarding what she described as being a breach of line of authority, Dazzell said that her contract of employment stated that she were to act, “in all respects, according to the instructions of, and directions given by the Commission through the Chief Election Officer.”

She said that when she commenced working for the Commission, however, she was told to report directly to the Chairman. Dazzell said that though she questioned that line of authority against the terms of her contract, and even highlighted that fact on the agency’s organogram, she was told to report to the Chairman which she continued to do, even after Justice Singh was appointed the new Chairperson.

She noted that while her contract stated that she report to the Chief Election Officer, it was never so in practice.

In her February 28th 2021 letter to Justice Singh, Dazzell said that at a statutory meeting of the Commission in 2020, she had cause to respond to “something” Shadick had said, and to condemn an untruth she [Shadick] had spoken against her.

Following that engagement, Dazzell said she asserted that she could not act on the directions of a single Commissioner when her reporting officer was the Chairman. She said that after her response, she sensed that Shadick was offended, “and I suspected that that offence would manifest itself in the near future.” “I am most assured that that future is upon me,” Dazzell said.

In concluding her missive to Justice Singh, Dazzell expressed the view, that from the conduct of the Commission, the contract of employment is only a formality, and that the real contract is evinced by the behaviour of the Commission.

That behaviour she said, “Is implied permission of my doing other legal work apart from that of the agency.”

Dazzell then went on to tell Justice Singh that she had found during her tenure at the Commission, that to maintain an apolitical posture, as is required by the very contract of employment, “is to suffer discrimination, abuse/victimization and intimidation in various forms by the Commission.”

Conduct which she said is contrary to the formal employment contract.

Dazzell said that a central implied part of any contract of employment is that the employer has a duty to foster and maintain the trust and confidence of its employees. This duty she said, is wide and encompasses, but not limited to, taking reasonable care to prevent abuse and intimidation and promoting equality.

“To my mind, and in relation to me, the Commission has failed in its duty and consequently does not enjoy my trust and confidence.”

It is against that background Dazzell said that she tendered her resignation, to which she also attached three-months’ notice, along with a copy of an application for annual vacation leave for the year 2020.

In her notice of resignation also dated February 28th, 2021, which took effect on June 4th, 2021. Dazzell expressed gratitude for what she said was an opportunity and experience which has “helped to shape my character and more importantly it provided the opportunity for me to meet and learn from so many people including the members of the Commission.”