Dear Editor:
Response is made to Chief Labour Officer (CLO) Dhaneshwar Deonarine’s letter, “The union must now bring this illegal strike to an end” (SN, 12th October 2022). With regards to the strike at Linden Utility Services Coop Society Limited (LUSCSL) it is not the CLO’s purview to determine illegality of a fundamental right as protected in Article 147(2) of the Constitution of Guyana. Only a court of law can so do.
By law, the CLO heads the Labour Department in the Ministry of Labour. The official duties of the officer holder are informed by laws, conventions and established labour practices to wit the incumbent is being held accountable.
1. The CLO said: “The inaugural conciliatory meeting on October 03, 2022, concluded with the Management undertaking to discuss the revised Terms of Resumption with the IMC and thereafter, communicate its position to the Ministry and the Union.”
Response: There was no revised Terms of Resumption (TOR). On 3rd October, the Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union (GB&GWU) and LUSCSL, under the chairmanship of the CLO, hammered out an agreed TOR which emerged from the proposal made by the Union.
At the conclusion of the meeting, under the CLO’s chairmanship, and where the proposed TOR was given to the parties (union and management), it becomes the responsibility of the CLO to continue engagement between the two parties to have normalcy return.
2. The CLO said: “To date, the Ministry has received no response from the Management. The Ministry cannot be blamed for the incompetence of Management in not consulting or informing the IMC of the decision arrived at with regard to the revised Terms of Resumption.”
Response: Under the labour law and practices it is the CLO’s responsibility to reach out to management and follow up on the TOR being signed. Likewise, he has a similar responsibility to the Union. To date the CLO has not contacted the Union after the meeting of 3rd October.
3. The CLO said “We, therefore, find it necessary to call on the Union to bring an end to its illegal strike action, restore normalcy, and allow for either direct negotiations at a bilateral level or conciliation to take place. We cannot and would not countenance nor accept illegality.”
Response:-One of the responsibilities of the CLO is to Avoid and Settle Dispute. A dispute exists at the LUSCSL. It is therefore the CLO’s responsibility, consistent with law and normal labour practices, to conciliate and restore normalcy.
Determination of the legality or illegality of strike is not for the CLO but a court of law. It is instructive to note when some workers strike the PPP is quick to deem the action illegal but striking sugar workers are never so accused. It needs repeating, the Constitution of Guyana (Article 147) protects the right to strike. The same constitution made very clear any law that violates what is ensconced shall be deemed null and void.
4. The CLO said: “Instructively, the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services (Arbitration) Act (Essential Services (Arbitration) Act), Cap.54:01, obligates that they report the dispute to the Minister (Section 12 of the said Act) …”
Response: Whereas the law requires reporting to the minister, who is the policy head, the day-to-day management of the Labour Department is that of the CLO. Historical custom and practice when workers proceed on industrial actions the union informs the CLO. On day one of the industrial action at LUSCSL the CLO was informed by the Union via letter.
The CLO must do his job consistent with the labour laws and practices. Workers of LUSCSL are Guyanese workers. The labour principles, practices and laws that apply to sugar workers represented by GAWU must also apply for LUSCSL workers represented by GB&GWU. We demand no more and expect no less in the land whose motto is “One People, One Nation, One Destiny” because we all should be recipients of the same treatment under the Constitution and Laws of Guyana.
Lincoln Lewis.
