There appeared in the newspapers a number of letters and articles relative to the situation at the Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc. (BCGI). Some letters mentioned my name and made certain insinuations; I did not plan to respond but when the elder politician, Mr Eusi Kwayana, got involved I think I owe him the respect of letting him know the facts so he can be better able to appreciate the situation.

First, I want to say that I have not betrayed any worker nor have I supported the raping of any law. Many of the labour laws and amendments enacted since 1994 and which enhanced workers rights that they now speak about were drafted by me; so I would be the last person to rape them.

When I was at the Ministry of Labour, as a Labour Officer or the Chief Labour Officer, I carried out the duties required of me as professionally and competently as I possible could. I am now retired, but workers, employers, even labour officers, still seek my advice which I freely give to the best of my knowledge. If a worker, an employer or union seeks my advice, such advice would be in the best interest of the one seeking the advice.

Secondly, it is clear that many of the writers are not possessed of the facts. My friend and colleague, Mr Sookdeo, is one, but being beyond the seas, he judged by what he read. As Chief Labour Officer, I always instilled in Labour Officers that if a person seeks advice, they should preface their advice with the statement, “If what you say is true then my advice is…”; so if subsequently different facts emerge then the advice would no longer hold. Many of the letter writers who tried to give me advice do not have the facts so their advice cannot hold.

Thirdly, the Minister of Labour and the Chief Labour Officer have been accused of abandoning their role and legal responsibility. The fact is that the Ministry did intervene.

Mr Kwayana said that he learnt of the dispute through an e-mail circulated by the WPA. Maybe the union’s actions were more political than industrial and the workers were used as pawns.

Please allow me to state the facts.

The company and the union commenced negotiations for 2009 on January 19, 2009. The talks were intermittent. The bauxite industry worldwide is severely affected by the economic recession and the union indicated its appreciation of the situation and so did not press for conclusion of the negotiations early, hoping that things will get better.

In the latter half of the year, the union proposed that the company and the union pen a joint letter to the government seeking a tax concession for overtime work. The union said that if the concession was granted until the financial situation of the company improves, it will assist both the company and the union. The joint letter and a subsequent reminder were sent.

A reply not having been received, the union sent an ultimatum to the company asking that the parties meet to conclude the negotiations.

A meeting was held and the union said its final position (demand) was 10 per cent.

The company faced with a virtual ultimatum responded with three proposals:

(1) The company will pay 10 per cent but will have to terminate 75 employees;

(2) The company will pay 10 per cent but will have to reduce working hours from 12 hours to eight hours per day;

(3) Pay the safety bonus tax free.

Let me explain proposal three above. The company pays the workers a certain percentage of their wages for each month that there is no downtime due to accident.

The bonus is paid in December and it is not an entitlement under the Collective Labour Agreement, but is paid by the company in the interest of Occupational Health and Safety. The bonus is taxed as is required under the tax laws. Many workers requested that the safety bonus be paid tax free in lieu of a salary increase as they appreciated the company’s financial position.

The company agreed and that was put to the union; it meant that the company will pay workers their gross bonus and will pay the equivalent taxes to the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) on behalf of the employees.

The union advised that it will accept option one. In fact, in a letter accepting option one, the union restated option one, word for word. So far so good.

However, at a meeting on November 20, 2009, the union said it will only sign an agreement for 10 per cent and not the condition that 75 persons will be terminated.

The meeting ended without an agreement being signed and both parties agreed that they will request the Chief Labour Officer to a meeting with them on (Tuesday) November 24, 2009.

Lo and behold! The workers took industrial action on (Sunday) November 22, 2009. In addition to striking, the workers marched on the residential compound and other areas of the company (airstrip, roads).

On (Tuesday) November 24, 2009, the parties met under the chairmanship of the Chief Labour Officer to resolve the strike; the attempt failed.

A resolution was within grasp as both parties wanted a settlement but it was not pursued. So Sookdeo, the intervention was made, more when I see you.

That opportunity having been lost, the workers led by union leaders during the night blocked and barricaded the roads, etc; the police and army had to intervene. This took place although the Chief Labour Officer had fixed another meeting for (Thursday) November 26, 2009.

The company subsequently dismissed 57 persons for riotous actions. Note, 143 were on strike but only 57 were dismissed. A senior executive of the union and a member of the union’s negotiating team who was on strike, but did not engage in the riot, was not dismissed and is back on the job.

I wish to say that the strike was called in breach of the Collective Labour Agreement and the law.

Mr Albert Thompson, in the November 26, 2009 edition of Kaieteur News, intimated that Minister Nadir should have moved quickly to settle the dispute as he did with Guysuco/GAWU.

There is nothing for the Minister to refer to compulsory arbitration. There was no dispute as to the amount of increase to be granted. The union asked for 10 per cent; the company said it will pay the 10 per cent on certain conditions; the union agreed. All that had to be done was for the appropriate working of the agreement to be arrived at.

I would now like to respond to some specifics as raised in the published letters.

Mr. Gonsalves asserted that “nothing is agreed, until all is agreed upon,” that has always been my position. But if you accept a proposal word for word, what else is left to be agreed upon. The modalities for implementation have to be according to the Collective Labour Agreement and the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act as stated by Mr Gonsalves. Those are written guidelines and must be observed. So what’s the agenda? He spoke of a continuum of 1 per cent – 10 per cent, another smoke screen; remember earlier the union said they accepted the 10 per cent.

Many writers spoke about negotiating in bad faith, violations of the Collective Labour Agreement, the Laws and the workers’ rights. But no one has shown where the company has bargained in bad faith, which section of the Collective Labour Agreement and which Laws have been broken.

Who bargained in bad faith? An agreement was reached but the union refused to sign what they agreed to. The parties agreed to go to the Ministry of Labour for conciliation as provided for in the Collective Labour Agreement. The union aborted that decision and went on strike. Who breached the Collective Labour Agreement?

Mr Sinclair spoke of Article 46(2) which reads, “In the event of strike…” and concludes that the clause accepts that there will be strikes, if so, doesn’t the conventional practice require that due notice be given. All the strikes called by the union were without notice.

The union does not feel bound to work by the agreement. It refused to go to conciliation and call strikes indiscriminately. The company sees these acts as repudiation of the Collective Labour Agreement and by letter of December 1, 2009 advised the union that it accepted the repudiation and views the Collective Labour Agreement as being terminated.

Mr Dindyal asserted that the company I represent continues to breach the laws and Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) and queried why I am not advising BCGI. Well, I hope Mr Dindyal can tell me which law he is referring to, and please quote the section, the same for the Collective Labour Agreement. If he cannot, then he should not get involved in things he knows nothing about. He said that the company is refusing to negotiate with the union and the Ministry of Labour. Can he say which meeting the company refused or failed to attend? This man is pondering to his ego. The company has attended all meetings called by the Ministry; the company even met with the Ethnic Relations Commisson and the Trade Union Recognition and Certification Board at their request.

Mr Dindyal then spoke about bad blood between the Minister of Labour, the Chief Labour Officer and myself; this man is living in a fantasy world created by his warped mind. I have just given the Minister the first draft of a document he asked me to prepare for use by Labour Officers in their training sessions. I also regularly speak with the Chief Labour Officer, so where is the bad blood? Maybe it’s in Dindyal’s veins.’

Mr Lewis said that when his union, the GB&GWU, was seeking recognition for Oldendorff workers, a perusal of the company’s record was conducted to verify the authenticity of workers’ signature in addition to interviewing those who signed the GB&GWU membership form and that was the first and only time in the history of Guyana this has ever happened.

I categorically say that persons were not interviewed, this has never happened as part of the verification process. The practice is that the signatures on the application works are matched with the signatures on the company’s payroll.

In the case of Oldendorff survey, the officer conducting the survey found that a number of signatures did not match. When the Board received the Officer’s report, a TUC member of the Board was not satisfied but when shown the documents had to concede. That is the fact; maybe the Board should have called in the Police.

Mr Gordon brought BOSAI into the picture. My regards Sir, the comparison is good and shows the maturity and professionalism of one union against the other.

Both companies faced the same problems with markets etc.; both unions were offered 0 per cent to keep the workers’ jobs but they reacted different – compare:

BOSAI	BCGI
1st offer Workers must repay $3,000 receive in 2008 as a cost of living allowance plus 4 per cent wage reduction	0 percent – keep all staff
2nd offer	At Union’s ultimatum of 10 per cent – proposed 3 options, the one accepted by u nion – 10 per cent with 75 persons terminated. Agreed but went on strike. 0 per cent – keep all staff
3rd offer	4.5 per cent – keep all staff

NAACIE at BOSAI was able to keep all the workers on the job with a little increase effective October 2009.

GB&GWU at BCGI demanded then agreed to 10 per cent with 75 persons losing their jobs, then called a strike. Which union served the best interest of it s members?

The union claimed that the company miscalculated and was caught off guard when the workers accepted option 1. Well! The workers – so the union claim – accepted option 1 and the company was ready to sign but the union walked away – who miscalculated and was caught off-guard.

Like Pharoah, GB&GWU led some of its members into the Red Sea.

BCGI is not anti-union or anti-worker. Payment of a safety bonus of its own volition is proof of this and it is willing to work with any union that acts responsibly.

Kaieteur News edition of 16-01-10 carried an article titled –RUSAL working with experienced Advice – Corbin.

The article quoted Mr Corbin as saying that RUSAL is working on expert advice on how to break the law.

Like others, Mr Corbin has generalised and was not specific as to which law has been broken. I hope that in his letter to the Minister he had indicated which law has been breached.

The second stated – “His response followed a disclosure that a former official of the Ministry of Labour had in fact been offering advice to the company while he occupied the Government office.”

No name was mentioned but it is clear that he was referring to me. The article did not say who made the disclosure and I hope that the name will be published. I see this as part of a smear campaign for even the person who made the disclosure knew he was lying; Dindyal knows this.

I am surprised though that Mr Corbin, who is supposed to be responsible, can accept a statement before verifying its accuracy, how unfortunate. He didn’t even preface his reaction with: ‘If what you say is correct then.”

In closing, I wish to say that all the writers have projected the company as the devil incarnate and the union as angels. None, except a Kaieteur news editorial, has been objective; I can understand Mr Lincoln Lewis, for he is the General Secretary of the Union, but persons like Mr Corbin should advise the union and let them correct their mistakes.
No more. Peace
Mohamed Akeel