FOLLOWING speculation on the outcome of arbitration between Guyana Agricultural Workers’ Union (GAWU) and the Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc. (GuySuCo), Arbitrator Mohamed Akeel on Monday declared that estate worker Daniel Stephen remains dismissed. 

The tribunal had looked into the disciplinary action against Skeldon Sugar Estate worker Daniel Stephen after he was involved in an encounter with the Estate Manager in September.

Speaking at a meeting in GAWU’s conference room on Monday, Akeel stated that he was entrusted with the difficult task of deciding whether or not Stephen should be dismissed or allowed to return to his job.

Akeel noted that after reviewing all the documentation from GAWU and GuySuCo, he decided to conclude the sittings on November 26, failing to reach an agreement with the parties involved.
There were numerous disputes among the parties on whether or not Stephen should be allowed to work or not, because recently GAWU issued a statement saying that they have settled on a conclusion that Stephen should be permitted to work, while GuySuCo decided that Stephen should not be allowed to work.
Akeel said he called several meetings to discuss the matter but GAWU refused to attend any of them.
Therefore, in an effort to end the confusion, the arbitration called a meeting yesterday disclosing that the tribunal is closed and Daniel Stephen is dismissed.
The suspension in November resulted in a massive strike in the sugar belt and a subsequent agreement between GuySuCo and GAWU.
Six conditions were agreed to by the Union and GuySuCo: that the strike by field and factory workers will end; the union will ensure full resumption of duties by field and factory workers from the day the strike ended; there will be no victimisation on either side because of strike action; all workers who were on strike will not have their ‘strike day’ counted as absent, but as days not available for work; that the dismissal of the Skeldon factory employee, Mr. Daniel Stephen, will now be treated as a suspension, without pay, until the end of the reconciliation talks, and within 24 hours after resumption of duties, the aggrieved parties – including GAWU – will meet with the Chief Labour Officer, who will make a final decision on the matter.
The Ministry of Labour’s recommendations were not binding, but those of the arbitration tribunal were.

GAWU’S ARGUMENT
GAWU’s President Komal Chand, in an earlier comment, had explained that the strike stemmed from an alleged altercation between Estate Manager Mr. Dave Kumar and Stephen.
He said the report he received was that on the day in question, at around 11:30 pm, the Estate Manager, who had allegedly been drinking, was on his way to the mill dock, where a cane harvest had been offloading.
Before he reached there, he met several workers and reportedly asked them to move. The allegation is that all the workers did not remove immediately, and the Estate Manger became incensed.
“The report we have is that the worker was verbally abused; he was cursed at, and there was a scuffle, where the Estate Manger allegedly attempted to hit him,” Chand had said.
He, at the time, said the worker continued working but was later informed that he was fired, and was escorted off the premises by the Estate’s security personnel.
Consequently, workers moved to strike action, and GAWU contends that the disciplinary code of action was not adhered to.

GUYSUCO’S COUNTER
GuySuCo, in an earlier statement, presented a different version of the incident. “The type of behaviour that was displayed by Mr. Stephen is recognised by the Corporation as one that constitutes gross misconduct, and such behaviour is treated with summary dismissal. As a consequence, Stephen was summarily dismissed,” GuySuCo said.
It added: “…the Corporation wishes to restate, as it did in a previous statement, that the Estate Manager, in his usual night visits to the factory and mill dock, met a group of workers that included Mr. Stephen who were malingering in the vicinity of the mill dock, and cautioned them to report to their respective work stations.
“On being cautioned by the Manager, Mr. Stephen became abusive, and was calmly advised by the Manager to heed his advice and report to his work station. Mr. Stephen subsequently retaliated and approached the Estate Manager in a hostile manner, and in the process struck the Manager in his face. The incident was witnessed by the Agriculture Manager and a Supernumerary Constable, all of whom testified that the Estate Manager was not intoxicated, nor was he aggressive and abusive to Mr. Stephen.”