Pressure at Barbados Water Authority

A circulated voice note on social media featured a recording purportedly of Carl Boyce, as he was addressing employees of The Barbados Water Authority. At the outset of the meeting, he expressed his frustration, stating that he was weary of feeling embarrassed by certain individuals. He conveyed that some workers seemed indifferent to both him and the union, while he bore the brunt of the repercussions while others evaded responsibility. He asserted that he could reveal instances where he had taken on significant burdens that others had avoided.

He emphasized that he was setting a clear boundary, insisting that employees adhere to their contractual obligations. In his discussions with the chairman, he had spent countless hours defending what seemed indefensible, and he had grown weary of it. Several incidents had revealed violations of regulations, and he made it clear that he would no longer defend actions that were beyond defense. He even mentioned his reluctance to attend meetings at Solidarity House to defend those who were wrong.

He warned that workers who believed their jobs were secure should think again. He criticized drivers who were speeding while towing compressors, highlighting that such accidents were inexcusable, as GPS data showed they were exceeding speed limits. Additionally, he expressed his displeasure with some general workers who expected payment without fulfilling their responsibilities.

His frustration extended to a procedural error that allowed a worker, who had physically confronted a foreman, to return to work. He found it disheartening to have to address falsehoods before the chairman, particularly as someone who attended church. He stressed that both management and the union needed to step up their efforts.

The meeting, he explained, was convened as an opportunity to inform those engaging in questionable behavior to cease, as he would no longer defend individuals involved in such infractions. He said that the permanent secretary had sent him pictures of staff members committing infractions. An employee in uniform had also been involved in an incident at The Pine Hill Dairy, and workers were congregating outside the gate well past their designated working hours.

Furthermore, he accused the group of harboring a mole, suggesting that the chairman and HR occasionally possessed information he was unaware of. The recording also contained allegations that some workers claimed to only have to complete two tasks during a working day.