-to reduce employee’s remuneration
IN 1969, Durga Persaud, a contractor, successfully sued his employer, Toolsie Persaud Limited  for unilaterally changing his contract to reduce his remuneration. Justice Kenneth George, who heard the action, ruled in favour of the plaintiff, holding that he was bound by a Guyana Court of Appeal decision.
Durga Persaud was granted judgment in the sum of $3, 216.00.
The facts of the case disclosed that the plaintiff sued the defendant company  for $3, 571.14 for work done and services rendered between January 12 and June 28, 1969, and on January 11 and August, 1970.
The nature of the work  involved the unloading of sand, stone and quarry siftings from boats and pontoons alongside the  company’s wharf on the Canje River.
The rate for unloading as originally agreed was 15 cents per ton, but the company unilaterally reduced to eight (8) cents per ton.
Protests by the plaintiff and his co-workers caused strikes, but were of no avail.
The trial judge accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses wherever there was a conflict  with the company’s witnesses,  save in respect  of plaintiff’s claim for the period February 22 to April 6, 1969, which was not  proved.
The defendant company contended  the action was misconceived; that it ought to have been brought for unliquidated damages for beach of agreement, and not for a liquidated amount  of  $3, 571.14. It further contended that an unilateral reduction  to eight cents  per ton, being a  fundamental repudiation, amounted to a termination of the contract.
But the trial judge held that:  
(i)    The Guyana Court of Appeal’s decision in Nobrega v. A.G. of Guyana, that an employer does not have the right to unilaterally change a contract with his employee so as to reduce remuneration was binding on the court;
(ii)    plaintiff is entitled to judgment, in the liquidated sum  claimed,  less  $355.00 since it is found as a fact  that he did no work  for the period  February 22, to April  6, 1969.
Judgment for plaintiff for $3, 216.14 with costs fixed at $700.00.
Mr. Ashton Chase, S.C. with Mr. Martin Zephr appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. S. Persaud represented the defendants.
Delivering his judgment, Justice George said: “The plaintiff, who was in the defendants’ employ between the years 1966 and 1970, claims from them a sum  of $3, 571.14  for work done and services rendered by him to them  between the January 12 and June 28, 1969, and January 11  and  August 7, 1970.
“At all material times, the plaintiff was engaged in the unloading of sand, stone and quarry sifting from boats and pontoons moored alongside the defendant’s wharf on the Canje River. He received his wages weekly.  
“In so far as sand was concerned, he claims that until October, 1968 he and others similarly employed had been paid at the rate of 15 cents per ton of sand unloaded.
“During that month, however, without any prior notice or warning, he received a pay packet which contained less than he had expected.   On calculating the amount in relation to the work  done, he realized that he had been paid at the rate of  eight cents  per ton  for unloading sand. Support  for the plaintiff’s evidence  as to the reduction in rate comes from Cecil Ramballie,  who was the defendant’s time-keeper  in Berbice during 1969.  
“In his further testimony, the plaintiff says that he spoke to Mr. Bobb Naraine, the defendants’ manager in Berbice who promised to contact the company’s headquarters. The following day, the manager told him that the company could not pay more, and the plaintiff could leave the job if he wished.
“As a result,  the plaintiff says that he and the other workmen similarly affected went on strike.
Conciliation talks were held by the Ministry of Labour with the striking workmen’s union, the Guyana Labour Union, and the defendant company, at which the plaintiff, in his capacity as a shop steward, was present.
“At the first meeting, it was agreed that the striking men should return to work and be paid at the rate of eight cents per ton for unloading  sand until the outcome of the conciliation talks. There were  several other  conciliation meetings, some of which were chaired  by Mr. Norman Semple, then a Senior Labour Officer attached to Berbice,   but the issue remained unresolved  up to the time of his departure from the country on October 11, 1971.
“Indeed, the dispute between the parties was never settled. It would appear that the  defendants’ representative at these meetings  had undertaken  to make a  thorough examination of their records  in order to determine to what extent  the workers overall wages had been adversely affected by the reduced rate; and thereafter,  a decision  would be made  as to what additional amounts should  be paid to the  employees as compensation for any loss of wages.
“The plaintiff further says that during the period of time  over which the conciliation talks were held, the workers went on strike on three occasions.”
After taking all the circumstances into consideration, Justice George, who later became Chancellor of the Judiciary, said: “Having regard to my finding that the plaintiff did not work at unloading sand  during the period February 22 to April 6, 1969,  I reduce his claim by a sum of $355.00.   I accordingly give judgment in his favour in the sum in the sum of $3, 216.14, with costs fixed at $700.00. Judgment for the plaintiff.”