THE Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) and the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE) have appealed Chief Justice Roxanne George-Wiltshire’s decision to throw out their application to quash the government’s decision to close the East Demerara and Rose Hall Estates.

The court ruling was made on November 10, 2017, the unions said in a joint statement on Monday. “Our unions, contended before the learned chief justice that the closure decisions were improper and there were insufficient consultations between the government and GuySuCo, on one hand, and the GAWU and the NAACIE, on the other. We pointed out to the court that consultations between the unions, the opposition and the government regarding the future of the sugar industry cannot be deemed as acceptable, noting that just about four hours in total were spent on the three occasions the parties met.”

Both GAWU and NAACIE have contended that they have a legitimate expectation to be consulted in a comprehensive manner, and pointed to previous instances where GuySuCo involved “our unions extensively in considering decisions which would have affected the employment of workers.”

According to the unions, they illustrated that the Sugar Commission of Inquiry (CoI) spent several hundred man hours over many days in reviewing information, considering submissions from several individuals and organisations, and visiting the estates and interacting with workers and managerial personnel, and at the end of that process it was recommended that closure should not be pursued.

“Our unions contended too that the closure decision clearly was not informed by the full consideration of all the factors which we have pointed out, especially that a socio-economic study was not pursued though it was necessary. Furthermore, we argued that the closure decision did not follow the clearly set out procedure contained in the Trade Union Recognition Act and the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act. Our unions are seeking that the government and GuySuCo engage in a proper and full consultation as we hold that such an exercise will result in a different decision being taken.”

The unions believe their appeal has great merit and substance and believe that the learned chief justice (a.g.) erred in her determination to deny our application. “Recognising that time for the closure decision is quickly approaching, we intend to file submissions seeking that the Appeal Court considers our matter soonest.

Compensation
Meanwhile, separately, the unions are seeking that the High Court require the State to pay damages to the ex-Wales Estate workers. “In our legal submissions, our unions are arguing that the State, as the owner of GuySuCo, by virtue of several articles of the constitution, is bound to provide suitable alternative employment or income support in lieu of work to the displaced workers for the rest of their working lives. We have also sought that the affected workers receive pensions equivalent to what they would have received had they been employed by GuySuCo.

Our unions have argued that sugar workers have a fair expectation to employment until they attain pensionable age with many following their parents, grandparents and other forefathers into the sugar industry. Furthermore, GAWU and NAACIE are arguing that sugar workers possess unique skills which are not portable, presenting a grave difficulty for them to secure employment beyond the industry.”

According to the unions, it is intended that similar actions would be pursued regarding the workers of Skeldon, Rose Hall and East Demerara Estates when the decisions concerning those estates fructify. “We are also hopeful that this matter would receive speedy attention given the difficult times that have beset the people of Wales. Our unions are fortified in our determination to protect the workers who will be affected by the plans for sugar.

We believe that we should use every available option in our efforts to safeguard the workers, their families and their communities, who seemingly, at this time, can be said to be up the river without a paddle. Clearly, it is our strongly held view, that they are no real or workable alternatives for the displaced sugar workers and they, their families and their communities will suffer tremendously from the cold-hearted approach to the industry.”