City ‘Stands By’ Decision To Terminate Four Staff

December 1, 2016

The City of Hamilton have responded to comments made pertaining to their four former employees, saying that “sometimes employees have to be terminated to protect the organization and maintain the safety of its employees and those they serve” and “the City of Hamilton stands by its decision to terminate them.”

The statement said, “The City of Hamilton would like to respond to some of the comments made in respect of four former employees.

“It is not the Corporation’s normal policy to comment specifically as to why employees are terminated. However, given the unsubstantiated exposure that has been afforded these former employees in the media, we believe we must respond.

“The Corporation has and does abide by the terms of the CBA it shares with the BIU; it has and does comply with all legal requirements under labour legislation.

“The Corporation is not a minimum standards compliance organization, it is one that values and treats with respect and fairness all of its employees.

“The Corporation does support the comments made by the President of the BIU in that the Union has taken all possible steps to represent its members, in this case the four former employees. The Corporation knows from its dealings with the BIU that the Union strongly supports its members.

“The main exception the Corporation takes with the President’s comments is to challenge his assertion that the Corporation does not have a drug policy in place.

“All involved parties, including the Department of Workforce Development and the BIU, are aware of the policy that has been in place and actively administered since 2009.

“It has always been, and will remain, the Corporation’s objective to work with its employees, the BIU and other stakeholders to produce a productive and harmonious working environment by ensuring that good policies, processes and procedures are in place.

“Additionally, to make sure that employees receive necessary training, guidance and referrals, to assist them in carrying out their day to day duties.

“Sometimes employees have to be terminated to protect the organization and maintain the safety of its employees and those they serve. The City of Hamilton stands by its decision to terminate them.”

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, Business, News

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    As a member of B.A.N. the founder and organizer of Bermudians Against Narcotics we take the note that the Corporation of Hamilton in the interest of Public Safety and public concern have a duty to perform whatever policies that are in keeping with this policy and that includes ,,,drug tests And guaranteeing a drug free environment. tests, for its employees should be compulsory especially if handling heavy equipment and driving vehicle..

    • wahoo says:

      You cannot argue with this.

    • bluwater says:

      ….and also should they divert valued employees to programs that offer addiction counselling, treatment and support.

    • Me says:

      Was all of them under the influence? I didn’t see that in the previous article. Do you know something in addition to what was said?

  2. Hummmm says:

    Let me see smoke weed or provide for my family? WTF smh

  3. mmm says:

    No doubt, we have all had to review our thoughts of drug policies and drug use in the work-place. Workers will be terminated if found committing drug offences. The workers have stated they are going to Court to fight for re-instatement, they must feel they have a case. We don,t know the specific circumstancesd that led to each person,s termination….all we can do is —is to be sure we are standing on solid ground..all the facts may come out in time, it may be strike three your out situation.

  4. ROGER says:

    I HEARD & UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE BIU PRESIDENT SAID & NOW READ & UNDERSTAND THIS. ALL THE BEST TO THEM, WITH THE CORPORATION OR GETTING ANOTHER JOB. IF THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT FROM THEM, HOPE THEY IMPROVE.

  5. swing voter says:

    so a drug policy is in place. seems I just can’t take Furbert for face value these days. If these bies won’t comply with the policy, what do you expect to happen when an innocent person is injured by one of them on the job….law suit