-AG Nandlall says; reaffirms government’s position on salary negotiations from 2024 onward

ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, has said that the time has passed for the government to entertain discussions regarding teachers’ salary increases for the period 2019 to 2023.

Speaking on his weekly programme, ‘Issues in the News,’ Nandlall highlighted the government’s position, firmly rejecting the notion of revisiting salary negotiations for past years.

Nandlall meticulously outlined the timeline of engagements between the Ministry of Education and the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU), since the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government assumed office in 2020.

The AG underscored the government’s commitment to fostering constructive dialogue, highlighting the numerous meetings held and issues addressed during this period.

On March 4, following a court-appointed mediation, the GTU called off its two-week illegal protest and agreed for the striking teachers to return to the classroom.

However, on Tuesday, talks broke down between the GTU and the Ministry of Education, again, after the ministry upheld the government’s position that discussions surrounding salary increases should be from 2024 onwards.

The GTU had asked for a 20 per cent increase and indicated that they are interested in discussing only salaries, particularly between the period 2019 and 2023, and nothing else.

The union maintained its determination to only discuss salary matters concerning the prior years and refused to address the other 25 matters which were identified by both the Ministry of Education and the union for discussion.

This resulted in the representatives of the union abandoning the process and walking out of the meeting.

“The government’s position is salaries can be discussed, but from 2024 going forward,” Nandlall stated.

Central to this stance is the government’s adherence to budgetary constraints and fiscal responsibility, ensuring that any salary increases are sustainable and aligned with the nation’s financial realities.

Nandlall’s argument is grounded in pragmatism and legal precedent, as he expounded upon the concept of “no work, no pay,” and underscored the reciprocal responsibilities of employers and employees in labour disputes.

He contends that the government cannot be expected to negotiate wage increases for years that have already passed, particularly when teachers had already benefitted from salary adjustments during those periods.

Furthermore, Nandlall challenged misconceptions surrounding the legal obligations of the government regarding the deduction and remittance of union dues from workers’ salaries.

He asserted that the government’s provision is that this service is voluntary and not legally mandated, signalling a need for clarity on such matters within the legal framework.

Looking ahead, Nandlall expressed confidence in the legal process, noting that the ongoing court proceedings surrounding the dispute between the government and the GTU.

The GTU is challenging in the High Court, the planned deductions from teachers’ pay for their participation in the ongoing industrial action. The respondent in the case is the attorney general.

The government’s decision to no longer deduct dues from teachers’ wages and salaries and remit them to the union is also being contested as discriminatory.

Nandlall highlighted the need for clarity on key legal issues raised by the case, ensuring that important matters are settled definitively within the judicial system.

He reaffirmed the government’s unwavering commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring transparency in labour negotiations to the equitable treatment of its employees.