BY ANNELIA NIXON

TRIBUNE BUSINESS REPORTER

anixon@tribunemedia.net

A FRESH dispute has erupted between the Road Traffic Department and the Bahamas Taxi Cab Union (BTCU) over enforcement practices at Lynden Pindling International Airport, with the union accusing the department of harassing taxi drivers while the department insists it is simply enforcing the law without fear or favour.

BTCU president Tyrone Butler alleged that Road Traffic officers recently prevented taxi drivers from accessing the airport taxi line after they refused to provide their personal telephone numbers during checks of their public service badges, taxi badges, licences and insurance.

But Road Traffic Department controller Dr K Melvin Munroe rejected the allegation that drivers were being victimised or that providing a telephone number was a new condition for operating.

“Whenever they apply for renewal, or even apply for a new public service badge, one of the requirements is to provide information so that they can be contacted, which would be phone contact,” Dr Munroe said.

He said drivers’ telephone information was already held by the Road Traffic Department and was therefore not considered private information in the context of the department’s records.

“So there’s no need for road traffic inspectors or supervisors to have to request such information unless there’s a need for an update of the information,” he said.

Dr Munroe also denied that officers had instructed drivers that they could not work if they refused to provide their telephone numbers.

“Under no circumstances were there anyone commanding that if they don’t provide this information, they cannot work because that’s not the case,” he said.

Mr Butler, however, maintained that the issue had directly affected taxi drivers’ ability to earn a living. He alleged that officers went beyond routine checks at the airport and began requesting drivers’ cell phone numbers, which he said was not part of the requirements drivers understood to be necessary to operate.

“What they did was they started refusing to let the drivers get their job,” Mr Butler said, describing the action as “harassment at the highest level” by Road Traffic against taxi drivers.

Mr Butler said some drivers ultimately provided their numbers because they feared being removed from the airport line.

“I know of a couple,” he said when asked how many drivers had been prevented from conducting business. “But there is this one particular driver, I think the rest of them were so intimidated, they just gave it up to avoid not being sent off the line.”

Dr Munroe said he had no knowledge of incidents in which taxi drivers were prevented from working because they refused to provide telephone contacts.

“I have no knowledge as relates to those type of incidents happening with taxi drivers,” he said.

The dispute also comes against the backdrop of broader tensions between taxi operators and livery drivers over access to airport business and enforcement of the rules governing commercial passenger transportation. Mr Butler accused the Road Traffic Department of applying the law selectively and questioned why, in his view, taxi operators were facing heightened scrutiny while similar enforcement was not being directed at livery operators.

He also claimed officers had stopped drivers while they were in the process of loading passengers, requiring them to produce documents in front of guests.

“That don’t have to be done at the taxi line in front of the guests,” Mr Butler said. “In some cases, drivers were actually putting guests in the car and the road traffic officers stop them, make the guests want to make the driver show his insurance and taxi licence.”

Dr Munroe rejected the suggestion that the department was taking sides in the ongoing taxi-livery dispute.

“The only horse I have in the race is the tourism product, and that is what is to be protected,” he said. “When it comes to livery drivers, taxi drivers, I don’t take a side. Our position is to enforce the law.”

He also pushed back against Mr Butler’s assertion that the Road Traffic Department and the Ministry of Transport were failing to recognise or enforce laws governing taxis and livery operations.

Dr Munroe said that if Butler believed there had been breaches of the law, he had legal avenues available to him.

“He comes under the umbrella of someone who is a KC, and if there is any breaches of the law, then he has a recourse with the courts,” Dr Munroe said.

The controller maintained that the department would continue its enforcement efforts.

“Our position is simple: we will enforce and continue to enforce without fear or favour to ensure that the tourism product is protected,” he said.

Mr Butler, meanwhile, said the union intends to consult its attorney over the issue and is seeking further action. He said he had attempted to contact the minister responsible but had not received a response.

While the Road Traffic Department maintains that its focus is compliance and protecting the tourism product, the taxi union contends that enforcement must be consistent and transparent and should not interfere with drivers’ ability to make a living.