A Supreme Court judge has dismissed a claim that the Minister of Public Works failed to abide by a compromise agreement with an aggrieved civil servant.

Calvin Simons launched legal action against the minister over allegations that he lost out on a promotion and increased pay while working with the Department of Works and Engineering.

After a failed 2021 attempt by the minister to have the case struck out, Mr Simons agreed to discontinue the case under a “compromise agreement” between the parties.

As part of the arrangement, the Government agreed that the minister would write to the Public Service Commission to recommend the civil servant for a vacant post as standards enforcement officer in the Ministry of Economy and Labour.

However, the matter returned to the Supreme Court, as Mr Simons alleged that the compromise agreement was not complied with because he did not get the position despite being well qualified for it.

In a written decision, Assistant Justice Jeffrey Elkinson, said that the Department of Workforce Development did write to the PSC, praising Mr Simons’s abilities, recommending him for the position and asking for the interview process to be waived in his case.

Despite the letter, the PSC refused to waive the interview and, based on the documents before them, found Mr Simons was not qualified for the post.

Mr Simons urged the court to make declarations that the PSC acted unreasonably by refusing the waiver and denying him the position, while claiming that the public works ministry failed to take proper steps to have the applicant’s appointment facilitated.

Mr Justice Elkinson said that while Mr Simons was approved and recommended for an automotive service technician level 4 qualification in 2020, the documents were not presented to the National Training Board — the only body that could certify him — leaving him under qualified on paper.

The judge wrote: “He had applied to be a level 4 technician and much to his chagrin, and which should be embarrassing for the Government is that, despite being recommended to be at that grade, staffing challenges, Covid-pandemic issues and it even being mistakenly listed that he was certified in that way, it took approximately four years for the paperwork to eventually reach the relevant person and it was only then that qualification at that level was acknowledged.”

Mr Justice Elkinson said that the PSC refused to waive the interview process for Mr Simons because, based on the information before them in 2022, he did not have the appropriate educational qualification.

He wrote that there was a “strong possibility” the issue could have been resolved in the interview process and Mr Simons was offered an interview in July 2022.

However, he said Mr Simons “flatly refused” to take part in the process, disqualifying him from the post.

Mr Justice Elkinson said: “I find that Mr Simons’s refusal to attend an interview was unreasonable in the context of the department trying, as I find from the evidence, that they were being considerate and co-operative in trying to find a way to allow him to achieve success in getting the post.

“I find that Mr Simons, although he may not have realised it at the time, disqualified himself from the post by not attending the first interview and, despite there being no obligation on the department which sought to provide another opportunity for his attendance at an interview on a later date, this was also rejected by Mr Simons.”

He added that the PSC had no obligation to “go and find out” the level of qualification that Mr Simons had and there was nothing to support his claim that the Minister of Public Works had failed to take the proper steps to assist him.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers