– Nandlall defends Gov’t decision to deduct striking teachers’ salaries

WITH the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) planning to mount legal actions, Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, has said that the government will firmly defend its decision to deduct the salaries of striking teachers engaging in the unlawful protests, which he said are politically motivated.

Last week, the Ministry of Education decided that it will no longer operate as a gracious agent for the collection of union dues that are remitted to the GTU.
On Tuesday, during his show ‘Issues in the News’, Nandlall criticised the GTU’s strike as a “breach of good faith” and existing engagement terms with the Ministry of Education.

He highlighted that the government had already met over 60 per cent of the union’s demands, with the rest under consideration, when the GTU unilaterally called for the strike.
“The union unilaterally called a strike in breach of the terms of engagement; that is not only unlawful but is an expression of bad faith,” Nandlall stated.

The Attorney-General did not mince words when discussing the political underpinnings of the strike, directly naming A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Member of Parliament and General Secretary of the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU), Coretta McDonald, and Guyana Trades Union Congress leader, Lincoln Lewis, as key political figures driving the strike for their own agendas.

“It is clear in my view, and it should be in the view of any objective observer, that political sentiments were the predominant driving force and are the predominant driving force in relation to the strike,” he stated while accusing them of “masquerading” union leadership for political opposition against the PPP-led government.
Nandlall’s comments underscore the government’s stance that the strike is less about teachers’ welfare and more about political rivalry.

On the legality of the government’s response to the strike, Nandlall provided a robust defence for the decision to deduct wages from striking teachers, drawing a distinction between the constitutional freedom to strike and the legal consequences of such actions.

“Persons are confusing the right to strike with a freedom to strike,” he clarified, explaining that the exercise of this freedom does not exempt one from facing the repercussions, notably wage deduction.

He explained that the “Constitution of Guyana article 137 confers upon every worker a freedom to strike, not a right to strike,” highlighting that withholding labour allows an employer to withhold pay.

Nandlall also shed light on serious allegations of financial irresponsibility within the GTU, noting the failure to file annual returns since 2005 and to provide audited financial statements since 1989.
This lack of accountability for nearly $2 billion received from members, he argued, severely undermines the GTU’s credibility and authority.

“Transparency and accountability are not concepts that apply only to the government. It applies to all public and private organisations, in particular, public organisations or public authorities, of which trade unions are a part”, Nandlall remarked, stressing the union’s legal and moral duty to its membership.

In response to the GTU’s threat of legal action against the government for severing the agency relationship used for collecting union dues, deducting salaries, and refusing collective bargaining, Nandlall remained firm.
Nandlall referenced the ruling made by the Honourable Chief Justice Ian Chang in the Guyana Public Service Union v.

Nanda Gopaul (number 584W/2000-Demerara) supporting the government’s position and expressed the government’s willingness to engage in fair bargaining without undue influence or duress.
He reassured that the government’s priority remains the advancement of Guyana’s development agenda and improving citizens’ lives, rather than engaging in court battles.

However, Nandlall made it clear that the government is prepared to defend its actions in court, emphasising its legal obligation to bargain collectively without undue pressure.
“Our government doesn’t want an antagonistic relationship with workers. We [PPP] are a working-class government. We don’t want acrimonious relationships with unions, we want to work with the unions. But we are not going to do so in bad faith.

“We want to bargain fairly…We are not going to do so under duress,” he asserted, signalling the government’s readiness to navigate legal challenges while upholding the principles of good governance and transparency.

Nandlall lamented the strike’s negative impact on students’ education and welfare, declaring the government’s responsibility to protect the nation’s most valuable asset—its children—and their right to education.

“The most important commodity that we can impart to our children is their education,” he said, underscoring the government’s commitment to ensuring continuity in education amidst the strike.

The Attorney-General reaffirmed the government’s position regarding the GTU strike, indicating a readiness to confront legal challenges and defend its actions to ensure governance and accountability within the framework of Guyana’s laws and educational objectives.

On the other side of the divide, other educators have voiced their disapproval of the GTU’s leadership and strategies.
They argued for a return to negotiations with the government and constructive dialogue to ensure that the educational needs of the nation’s children are met without further disruption.

They advocated for a more inclusive, and dialogue-driven approach to addressing the sector’s challenges since the strike is not the way forward and a broader conversation is needed about the most effective ways to advocate for and support educators in Guyana.

McDonald has stated that potential salary deductions for participating teachers would not pose a problem, as “corporate sponsors” have committed to reimbursing affected educators.
However, specifics regarding these sponsors, the total funds pledged, and the planned distribution method remain undisclosed.