7th August 2012, 05:52 PM
I have spent time on the phone in discussion with the archaeological contractor who supplied the labour - for reasons of confidentiality I will not be disclosing the name.
I am satisfied regarding the reasons behind the non continuation of some staff members on the site and have been assured that this is only in relation to this site.
It was clear that people should try to understand that binding contractual obligations and archaeological ethics often scrape together uncomfortably and complexity of communication from the various bodies involved will have contributed to a less than perfect understanding of the whole picture for any one group.
That said, the pending Ministerial investigation will perhaps highlight the issues that brought this crisis to a head and may perhaps be a a warning for other future capital projects.
Clearly, the staff who stood up for the archaeology did so for the best of reasons - the archaeology itself, and this should not be held against them, as they were unaware of ongoing negotiations for the site and they felt this was their only course of action - however, there should be a better way of voicing concerns. One that needs considerable thought by contractors.
I am happy that should staff want to work with the contractor again - on other sites - this will not be prejudicial.
I am satisfied regarding the reasons behind the non continuation of some staff members on the site and have been assured that this is only in relation to this site.
It was clear that people should try to understand that binding contractual obligations and archaeological ethics often scrape together uncomfortably and complexity of communication from the various bodies involved will have contributed to a less than perfect understanding of the whole picture for any one group.
That said, the pending Ministerial investigation will perhaps highlight the issues that brought this crisis to a head and may perhaps be a a warning for other future capital projects.
Clearly, the staff who stood up for the archaeology did so for the best of reasons - the archaeology itself, and this should not be held against them, as they were unaware of ongoing negotiations for the site and they felt this was their only course of action - however, there should be a better way of voicing concerns. One that needs considerable thought by contractors.
I am happy that should staff want to work with the contractor again - on other sites - this will not be prejudicial.