THERE HAS been much controversy over the recent "right to strike" law.

The impetus for this law was the Hotel Four Seasons case of 1985 where the Court of Appeal found that the workers, having gone on strike, had repudiated their contracts of employment which the employer accepted, thus terminating their employment. The union in that case was represented by The Hon. Carl Rattray, Q.C., who is now president of the Court of Appeal.

I am told that this amendment to the law has been in the making since early 1993 when it was approved by Cabinet at a time when The Hon. Carl Rattray, Q.C. was Attorney-General and a member of Cabinet.

While this "right to strike" amendment to the labour law was under consideration, the Grand Lido Negril case, which was extraordinarily similar to the Hotel Four Seasons case, came before the Court of Appeal. The Hon. Carl Rattray, Q.C., now as president of the Court of Appeal, sat in judgement and ruled against Grand Lido Negril and seemingly against the previous decision in the Hotel Four Seasons case. Two of the three judges ruled that the Four Seasons case did not apply to the Grand Lido's.

Conflict of interest?

The question that occurs to the minds of many people is this: was Mr. Rattray, who clearly disagreed with the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal when he lost the Hotel Four Seasons case, now as Attorney-General, involved in amending the law? Should he have presided in the Court of Appeal in the Grand Lido case?

Does the involvement of The Hon. Carl Rattray, Q.C., first as attorney for the union in the Hotel Four Seasons case, then as Attorney-General and member of Cabinet, and lastly as president of the Court of Appeal in the Grand Lido Negril case, bear any resemblance to the recent events surrounding the Pinochet case where the judgement of the Privy Council was overturned by the Law Lords because of an apparent conflict of interest of one of the Law Lords? This decision was based on an old principle that justice must not only be done, but must appear manifestly to be done.

Some years ago, I had a small argument with Mr. Rattray about capital punishment and about the proposal for creating a Caribbean Court of Appeal. On the first subject, he said that those who advocate capital punishment were "Neanderthals, roast breadfruits or plain, downright pukka sahibs."

As to the Caribbean Court of Appeal, Mr. Rattray wrote: "My own sense of history, identity and integrity as a jurist and as a person, rebels against the notion that our final Court of Appeal must still continue to reside in the United Kingdom". He can be a pompous gentleman on occasion.

Well, my own sense of this, that and the other, as a not so humble scribbler, tells me that if "the right to strike" amendment to the labour law overrides the judgement in the Hotel Four Seasons case, strikes will blossom mightily, especially in the tourist industry. The trade unions are, on occasion, just as good at harassment as the others who regard tourists as prey rather than guests.

Finally, if I may return to capital punishment, Alphonse Karr, a 19th century French writer wrote: "If we are to abolish the death penalty I should like to see the first step taken by our murderers".

INFORMATION NEEDED

In a previous column I mentioned the large debts which were disclosed to the Century National Bank by a group of PNP Ministers on the one hand and by Edward Seaga on the other. I asked FINSAC to tell me whether these debts had been paid.

There has been complete silence on this matter, but I think it is important that the public should know. I'm asking FINSAC once again to give us the information. If it does not, I intend to get the answer perhaps in ways that FINSAC might not like.

While on the subject of FINSAC, I see that the selling of some assets acquired during the take-over of the Century National Bank and the Blaise Group, has been held up by legal difficulties of various kinds. I think that the Government should now pass a law vesting these assets in FINSAC. Draconian and drastic perhaps, but it would allow FINSAC to sell these assets right away and the endless arguments about who is to get what could then take place at leisure afterwards.