THE National Insurance Scheme (NIS) of Guyana has taken the management of C Com Marketing Group Inc. to court, after discovering that the company, a call centre located in Kingston, Georgetown, has been deducting NIS contributions from workers’ salaries and not remitting them.This newspaper was able to confirm that the principals of the company appeared in court on Thursday, since according to the NIS, the company has been registered with the Scheme since July 1, 2014, but to date has not remitted a cent on behalf of its employees.
The company, which has a high staff turnover, is also battling claims of wrongful dismissal, victimisation, withholding of salaries without proper explanations, delayed payments and other infringements which are not in keeping with the laws of Guyana.

On Tuesday, several employees expressed their displeasure over the manner in which the Kingston company has been conducting its affairs and how it has been treating them.
It was reported to this newspaper that several employees were dismissed on January 19 and up to Tuesday, they had not been paid. They claimed that they were dismissed without being given any warning letters, and without knowingly committing any infringements; they believe that their dismissals were inspired by spite, because they had spoken out against the company’s failure to remit their NIS contributions, although those were being deducted.
One worker stated that she showed up for work, only to be told that her services were no longer needed. The young lady, Monett Samuels, explained that the company has no evidence of wrongdoing on her part, prior to her receiving her dismissal letter; yet, when she received the letter, it stated that she had already been issued three warning letters about her conduct on the job.
According to the young lady- who was very vocal- her performance on the job was above board and she was loved by the supervisors. Additionally, her dismissal was done without her supervisors’ inputs or recommendations of any sort.
She said that after asking for her salary following her dismissal, her employer told her that they could not be paid, since the parent company overseas did not transfer any money to the local company to pay staff. This, Samuels said, is a lie since only Monday two other persons were dismissed and they were able to receive their salaries in full. The young lady is calling on the company to honour its lawful obligations to the Guyanese workers and ensure that they are paid their severance pay, back pay and salaries which they have already worked for.

One other employee who also spoke with the Chronicle said that upon signing her employment contract, she was told that within three months of her employment she would receive an additional $10,000 on her salary, but to date that agreement has not been honoured.
She said that she also showed up for work and was told, by way of a letter, that her services were no longer needed. According to her, she believes that the company made the decision since she questioned management at a meeting a few days earlier about the deduction of $2500.00 from her salary to the NIS, although she has not registered with the scheme, did not have an NIS number or card and was reliably informed that the company does not remit contributions to the Scheme, after they have been deducted.
The other employee who spoke with the Chronicle also levelled claims of victimisation against the company, stating that the company decided to terminate her services because of a medical condition that she has. She too claimed that money had been deducted from her salary for the NIS.
Yesterday, this publication requested an interview with a representative of the company, but our initial call was met with a response that the individual was in a meeting and that a call would be returned, but that was not done. When this publication subsequently called again, a gentlemen named, Hassan said that he would not be able to accommodate an interview with this newspaper until tomorrow.
However, when told that our story could not be withheld until then, the gentleman then proposed to facilitate an interview before 15.00 hrs yesterday, but that interview could not have been accommodated by this publication, since it would have clashed with another engagement that this reporter had already scheduled.