FORMER human resource manager for Petrojam Yolande Ramharrack was paid $9.2 million upon her separation from the company in November.

At the same time Former General Manager Floyd Grindley received a gross settlement of $7.2 million when he resigned from the scandal-hit company last July.

The revelation in the long-running controversy surrounding the State oil refinery was made at yesterday’s meeting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which continued its review of the Auditor General’s damning December report on Petrojam, and to a lesser extent, its parent company, the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica (PCJ).

Petrojam General Manager Winston Watson sought to explain the reasons Petrojam had discontinued disciplinary hearings and a settlement finalised with the embattled former HR manager, who allegedly, after just six weeks on the job, received an increase of $3 million on her $10 million per annum salary package.

Watson told the committee that Petrojam had received approval for the settlement from the Ministry of Finance.

“The hearing was moving very slowly, and we agreed to terminate, (and) suspended the hearing. Part of the difficulty is that the hearing was being extended over a long period. The difficulty I was having… was that you’re trying to run a business but you technically can’t function with a HR department with a manager that should not be there; there were just too many conflicts taking place,” he told the committee.

He pointed out that it would still have cost the company to send Ramharrack on leave while the probe being carried out by various Government investigative bodies was ongoing.

North West Manchester Member of Parliament Mikael Phillips said the move set a bad precedence. He said, had Petrojam waited on the relevant findings, it would have been in a better position to determine whether the former manager was due that level of compensation.

Meanwhile, Manchester Central MP Peter Bunting characterised the entire affair as “scandalous”, and a case study in nepotism, cronyism, corruption and misconduct. “This symbolises everything that should not be done in public sector employment with taxpayers’ money,” he remarked.

The PAC also sharply criticised the settlement reached with former general manager Grindley, who had waived the probation period for Ramharrack.

St Catherine South MP Fitz Jackson questioned whether Petrojam should have negotiated a settlement with an employee who was in breach of company rules, and prompted the Auditor General to advise the committee on the matter.

Permanent Secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) Sancia Bennett Templer initially declined to answer questions about Ramharrack’s settlement, telling the committee that she had been advised by the Attorney General’s chambers that responding to the question would lead to a breach of confidence.

This drew the wrath of committee member and state minister in the OPM Everald Warmington: “What the hell are we hearing here? What is being said to us here?…Chairman, I believe we are being treated with contempt, and you need to advise the PS of the importance of this committee, and we demand answers… I’m losing my patience, I’m on this committee since 1980 and I’ve never come across something like this. Don’t tell me about legal advice because you’re getting incorrect legal advice,” he said.

PAC chairman Mark Golding said the committee could not accept that position. “If Petrojam has forged some agreement with a former employee and we want to probe that, we can’t be told that it’s gonna breach some obligation of confidence. This must override any such obligation, because this is a public body and these are issues that we have a duty to get to the bottom of. You can’t trump the obligations under the constitution of ensuring proper oversight of public bodies by having some kind of contractual arrangement,” he said.

Golding charged that the response from the OPM could be perceived as facilitating a cover-up.

But Bennett Templer stressed: “I have indicated a difficulty in answering at this time. That is not meant in any way to be any disrespect to this committee. This is my being minded by the legal advice that I have been given in this matter. It has also been indicated to me that if the committee insists that they must have an answer that I must ask that I can respond in a closed session. I am strongly advised that I am not at liberty to discuss this matter in this current forum.”