Dear Editor,

THE Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) was taken aback by the comments made by the Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc (GuySuCo) in a letter that appeared in the August 6, 2016 edition of Stabroek News under the authorship of the Corporation’s Senior Communication’s Officer Ms Audreyanna Thomas.The first observation that we wish to highlight is that the closure of the LBI sugar factory in May 2011 was a standalone act by the sugar corporation. Communication to that effect by GuySuCo to the GAWU and the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE) was given in 2011 during the engagement of the parties, when they met to address the deployment of the LBI factory workers to the Enmore factory.

That was five years ago. If, in 2011, it was the Corporation’s decision to close the entire LBI operations, then why is it being carried out five (5) years later? Why, during this time, was the Field Workshop enlarged to undertake a greater volume of work? It should be noted that several GuySuCo top personnel who were involved in the 2011 partial closure of LBI are still at the helm up to today, but, for some reason, they could not implement a decision made since 2011.

Well! Well! Is this another instance of the competence that GuySuCo management is known for? In this regard, we direct Ms. Thomas to a letter appearing in the April 27, 2016 edition of Kaieteur News, written by former GuySuCo Human Resource Director Jairam Petam, in which he said, inter alia, that in 2011:- “it was never the intention of the Company to close any operation beyond that of the LBI factory”. This is an unambiguous statement from someone who should know.

We hope that this brings greater clarity to the issue.

GAWU believes that if, five (5) years later, GuySuCo has decided to close the operations at LBI, it should be forthright about it, in spite of the hardship this decision would bring to the workers. Couching the issue to say it was a done deal back in 2011 only serves to rub salt in a fresh wound.

Our Union also strongly disputes that GuySuCo, at the meeting on April 12, 2016, informed us and NACCIE that all LBI workers would be transferred to Enmore Estate. In fact, GuySuCo’s representative, in response to a question from our Union about the status of the LBI field workers, said pointedly that the LBI field operations would continue and the workers would remain at LBI. He was clear and unambiguous.

Indeed, the Unions and GuySuCo, at the April, 2016 meeting, began to consider the fate of the workers engaged at the administrative offices, field workshop, field laboratory, mill dock, stores, and cane transport of LBI with respect to their deployment to Enmore Estate and the entitlements to some who may be retrenched. In that process, each worker concerned was interviewed in the presence of the Unions, (GAWU and NAACIE) in keeping with the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act (TESPA).

That exercise resulted in 42 workers (not 40) being made redundant, and 178 being transferred to work at Enmore Estate.

Interestingly, GuySuCo boasts of its adherence to the law in this case, but at the same time is openly flouting the very law regarding the workers at Wales Estate. Now, three months after its assurance, GuySuCo is demanding that the field workers be transferred to Enmore. Shouldn’t the Corporation also, in this case, follow the same process in keeping with TESPA; ie: interviewing each field worker, as it did regarding the other LBI workers?

The Corporation seems to be whimsically adopting different approaches as it so deems. It also seems that the Corporation’s spokesperson was misled, since at no time did our Union agree that the LBI cane cutters would be transferred to Enmore Estate, though our Union approved the merger of the two (2) LBI cane-cutting gangs, namely 7A and 7B.

It would appear perplexing that our Union would reach such an agreement with the Corporation on August 03, 2016, considering that, just a few hours prior to that meeting, the Union and the field workers staged a picketing exercise outside of the Corporation’s Ogle Headquarters, expressing their opposition to the arbitrary transfer.

We urge Ms. Thomas to check with the GuySuCo representatives with a view to clarifying the obviously incorrect communication to the public and to ensure its retraction.

The Corporation is also saying that the current ‘process’ would “bring to an end all operations under LBI”. The fact is that LBI, at this time, has some 2,700 hectares of land under cane cultivation, and therefore the field operations will obviously continue. Thus the jobs of LBI workers cannot become redundant.

In should be noted, however, that should the LBI field workers become a part of the Enmore workforce, they would be required to work under less favourable conditions.

Regards,
GUYANA AGRICULTURAL AND GENERAL WORKERS’ UNION