Termination of deduction of Union dues and Agency fees not unlawful
CHIEF Justice Acting, Mr. Ian Chang, S.C.,  yesterday dismissed an action brought by the Guyana  Public Service Union (GPSU) against Dr. Nanda Gopaul, the then Permanent Secretary in the Public Service Ministry (PSM), relative  to the termination of Union dues and Agency fees, which the union said was an illegal act.
On July 31, 2000 the GPSU instituted these proceedings against the defendant claiming declarations and damages.
In his judgment, the Chief Justice said the basic facts of this case are not in dispute.
According to him, in 1976 the Government of Guyana (GoG) represented by the PSM and the GPSU entered into an agreement under which the GoG undertook to deduct from the salaries, of full time employees in the Service on or after the 1st March 1976 and who exercised the option of not becoming members of GPSU at the time of recruitment, Agency fees and to remit such Agency fees to the GPSU.
In the Agreement, “Agency fees” was defined as a sum of money equivalent to union dues fixed in accordance with the registered rules of the union.
It is thus clear that while “agency fees” and “union dues” were the same in amount, they were not synonymous.
“Agency fees” related to non-members of the union while “union dues” related to union members. The agreement took effect from the 1st May, 1976 and applied to non-union public service employees recruited on or after that date.
Since the GPSU had no contractual relationship with non-union public service employees, in order to enable the GPSU to benefit from agency fees, the then Permanent Secretary, in a circular No. 7 of 1976, had written to all Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Department in the following terms:
“In order to give effect to this decision (cabinet) you are asked to include as a condition of their employment in the Public Service the payment of Agency fees by the check–off System in the terms and conditions of new entrants in the public service as from 1st March, 1976 unless he/she chooses to become a member of the union.”
Thus, as from  the 1st March, 1976, new entrants in the  public service  who did not choose to become union members, were nevertheless  contractually bound by the terms and conditions of their employment with the GOG  to pay  agency fees to the GPSU. Union members paid union dues while non-union employees recruited after the 1st of March 1976, by their contract of employment with the GOG, were required to Agency fees,the  Chief Justice had declared.
The Chief Justice went on to say that in the calamitous state of affairs in the union’s records and accounts in relation to both union membership and non-membership, and to both union dues and agency fees which must have eventuated by the union’s application of Rule 3 (b) of its rules, and not the act of the defendant in his capacity of Permanent  Secretary of PSM in terminating the deductions of both Agency fees and union dues from public service employees’ salaries cannot be viewed as an act done unlawfully or in bad faith or with reckless indifference or disregard to the legality or illegality of the act.
The Chief Justice added, “In respect of the deduction of union dues, in particular, the GOG  was merely acting as the agent of the union for the purpose of withholding and remitting such dues to the union.
The withdrawal of such Agency service by the GOG did not mean that such dues were not collectible. It merely meant that the GPSU was tasked with collecting such union dues itself.  As such, unlike the case of Agency fees, if the plaintiff union suffered any financial loss, it was on account of its own inaction.
“Having regard to what has been stated above, this court must dismiss the plaintiff’s case and deny the relief sought.
“There will be costs to the defendant fixed in the sum of $25, 000.”
Miss Abiola Wong-Innis represented the Plaintiff while Mr. Ashton Chase, S.C. appeared for the defendant.