ON June 15 last year, Allan Lane Ramkissoon, a pipefitter with Massy Energy Engineering Solutions Ltd, suffered severe burn injuries while conducting preparatory work for planned maintenance at NiQuan Energy’s gas-to-liquids plant in Pointe-a-Pierre.
Three days later, Ramkissoon eventually died while undergoing medical treatment in Colombia.
And to help ensure that Massy was able to walk away from that incident with their reputation intact, they hired a consultancy firm to help.
In her 13-page letter submitted to Massy’s chief executive officer Gervase Warner, Angelique Parisot-Potter, Massy’s former general counsel and executive vice president of business integrity, raised concerns about the manner in which this was done and the connection to the conglomerate’s chairman Robert Riley.
According to Parisot-Potter, on June 23 a decision was made to hire reputation management consultants in relation to the fatality experienced.
“Robert Riley directed the Gases portfolio to use a reputation management consultant with which he is affiliated. I raised the conflict and proposed that for good governance and to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest, an RFP (Request for Proposal) should be issued and a decision made by the team but excluding Robert Riley. Against my advice, which was ignored, the reputation management consultancy with which Robert Riley is affiliated was used at Robert’s directive and instruction, with no mention of the clear conflict and with no declaration as required (by Massy’s conflict of interest policy),” Parisot-Potter wrote.
“This mirrors a pattern of behaviour where there is poor governance, no due process, with, on many occasions, single-sourced decisions being made in relation to highly paid consultancies such as McKinsey, Egon Zehnder and Delphi. There is a culture of cronyism; a lack of due process; a lack of transparency as to why decisions are made and big (and smaller) contracts are awarded; who ‘gets to stay on’ post-60; who gets to be GC, as well as a culture of toxic positivity where the senior leadership is expected to agree and align on everything, speak the same ‘Delphi’ language, with no room for diversity of thought,” she stated.
Parisot-Potter said that when questions were asked about process, transparency, fairness and equity, they were seen as challenging the status quo, and “trying to cause harm to the ‘boys’ club’ or the Delphi Friday crew.”
“It is seen as stepping out of the ‘team’ environment; not being aligned or ‘happy’, not being supportive of the group think, not being an echo chamber,” she stated.
Parisot-Potter raised the issue with Massy’s executive director Vaughn Martin.
In an audio clip obtained by Express Business, Parisot-Potter suggested sending out an RFP for the services.
“I think we need to approach this with great structure and urgency so I am suggesting that what we do is we send an RFP to several providers that have been listed,” she said.
However, she was told that Riley was adamant about using the consultancy firm that he directed them to use.
“I do think, however, for transparency and good governance, we should at least have an RFP which we circulate, in addition to the parties that Robert has mentioned, because there could be a perception that there is a conflict there. So I do think that out of caution, transparency, and good governance, we do need to have an RFP that we circulate, not just to the two names that have been suggested by Robert, but (to) the names suggested by others,” she said.
The independent investigation into Massy, however, said there was no evidence to support Parisot-Potter’s allegation.
“The evidence does not establish a conflict of interest between the chairman of Massy and a reputational management consultant engaged by Massy in June 2023,” the executive summary stated.
“The evidence does not establish a pattern of behaviour where there is poor governance, no due process in relation to consultancies such as McKinsey, Egon Zehnder and Delphi,” it stated.
Why are dividends paid in US?
Apart from this concern about a conflict of interest, Parisot-Potter in her 13-page letter also highlighted the issue of Massy paying dividends in United States dollars.
In her letter, Parisot-Potter spoke of a specific meeting on September 6, 2023 when the issue was raised.
“At that meeting I felt as if I was being tolerated. Every comment I made, every question I asked and any feedback I gave was disregarded or unacknowledged—so much so that when I asked questions about the payment of dividends in USD, I felt I was not allowed to ask or receive answers to the questions I raised. Some of the questions to which I either received (a) vague or no response were: was there a policy that spoke to which shareholders could receive dividends in USD; whether all shareholders had a similar right to access their dividends in USD; how many shareholders received dividends in USD; where were these shareholders based; were there any shareholders based in Trinidad receiving USD dividends; and what was the value of payments in USD and whether we had approval to pay dividends in USD. Both Gervase (Warner) and Wendy (Kerry) gave me vague and incomplete answers and it is my belief that these questions I raised were the reason Gervase called the first meeting two days later,” she said.
Parisot-Potter said on September 26, Warner held a meeting with her which she said was aimed at forcing her out of the organisation.
“The evidence does not establish a pattern of behaviour where there is poor governance, no due process, including in relation the payment of dividends and consultancies such as McKinsey, Egon Zehnder and Delphi,” the investigation stated.
Parisot-Potter said that she felt things were being done to make the environment difficult for her and thereby force her to have to leave.
“The analysis highlights a consistent thread of subtle and overt implications challenging my leadership abilities, notwithstanding the consistent positive feedback captured in my 360-degree 12 reviews over the past eight years. This prolonged, veiled, and at times overtly aggressive behaviour has taken a toll on my well-being. Being compelled to exit at the zenith of my career is deeply concerning. The measures adopted and discussions unmistakably point to constructive dismissal. Such a premature departure jeopardises not only my professional reputation but also future career prospects and engagements,” she stated.
“My intent is to reach a fair and equitable agreement without tarnishing the company’s image or harming its stakeholders. Despite being forced to depart for reasons that aren’t grounded in technical competence, my allegiance to Massy remains steadfast and I care for the good people who work here and because I am the third largest executive shareholder after Vaughn Martin and Gervase. My objective is to draw attention to the series of actions that collectively constitute constructive dismissal and the challenges these pose in fulfilling my duties and the existential crisis that I now face,” she stated.
