FLA head, auditor general in stand-off over $8m paid to terminate contracts in 2017

The leadership of the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) and the Government’s chief auditor remain at a stalemate over the termination of the foxed term contracts of five employees in 2017, at a cost of $8.4 million.

At Tuesday’s meeting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the FLA was urged to seek advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers on the issue, notwithstanding having engaged private counsel.

During the PAC meeting, Auditor General Pamela Monroe Ellis maintained, as she did in her 2019/20 annual report to Parliament, that the termination benefits to the employees were in excess of the amounts due under their employment contracts.

She said the termination arrangements breached fixed term contract policy guidelines and that the Ministry of Finance had not authorised the adjustments to contracts to facilitate the payout.

Monroe Ellis noted that the FLA paid the former employees notice pay ranging from three to 20 months, and gratuity without the requisite performance evaluations.

But head of the FLA, Shane Dalling, told PAC that its parent ministry —the Ministry of National Security — knew from the start, the arrangements that were being made to terminate the contracts.

Dalling argued that the terminations had been amicable and legal.

“We decided, based on certain circumstances, to separate with employees because of what was taking place at a particular time in the life of the entity. We decided to do so in what we view as an amicable way, based on what we were faced with at the time,” said Dalling.

He said based on independent legal advice, the FLA’s management was guided by the fixed term contract policy, which says contracts may be amended by mutual agreement to facilitate changes in their terms and conditions of employment.

“The funds stated in that agreement were the exact amounts paid out by the FLA,” said Dalling.

But Monroe Ellis was firm in her insistence that the monies should be repaid.

“In this matter it is the Ministry of Finance that has the authority and not the parent ministry. Mr Dalling has documented his views on this matter, and I have documented mine,” said Monroe Ellis.

“I cannot confirm, but it may be that the practice is continuing (at the FLA) based on Mr Dalling’s interpretation. I will not at this point seek to have any discussion regarding the legal application of the provisions of the contract — my responsibility is to refer the matter to the Ministry of Finance with a recommendation for recovering the sums, because I treat it as an overpayment, and so the officer responsible for it ought to make good [on] that overpayment”.

This was not accepted by Dalling who was adamant that the auditor general was wrong.

“The auditor general’s view is that she doesn’t believe that section nine of the fixed term contract policy was intended for that purpose. I maintain strong objection to that because I believe the section is clear enough to facilitate a change in the terms and conditions of the employment contract.

“The auditor general’s position, I believe, is up for interpretation as to whether the section was intended for that purpose, because nothing on the face of the document suggests that it bars what we did,” argued Dalling.