-union’s credibility under scrutiny as meeting minutes dispute deepens in court

THE credibility of the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) is facing intense scrutiny as more doubts emerge regarding the existence of crucial minutes of meetings purportedly held between the union and the Ministry of Education (MoE).

The latest developments unfolded after it was revealed that the ministry stands as the sole possessor of documentation pertaining to these meetings.

On Tuesday, GTU President, Mark Lyte, asserted to Justice Sandil Kissoon that the union possessed minutes of meetings held with the ministry from 2019 to 2023.

However, when questioned by the judge on Wednesday, it was revealed that no such documents could be located, casting serious doubts about the reliability of the GTU’s claims.

The Ministry of Education handed over all documents related to meetings with the GTU from 2020 to February 2024, in compliance with court orders.

Justice Kissoon pressed on with the hearing on Wednesday, 24 hours after he had proposed that minutes from both parties be examined to form a “statement of agreed facts.”

“The burden of proof is with the applicant. The applicant has indicated they are in possession of minutes.

“The applicant is saying, however, that those minutes do not reflect what the representative of the respondent is contending,” Justice Kissoon said during the hearing.

He further explained that the court even ordered Chief Education Officer (CEO) Saddam Hussain to assist the judicial review with copies of all of those documents that support the performance contained in his affidavit for the case.

“The court is proposing that all of the minutes that are in possession of the applicant and the respondent be part of the bundle of documents before this court, to be examined by all parties within a stipulated time… And a statement of agreed facts be prepared by the parties flowing from the contents of those documents. And any facts that are disputed, we set out separately,” Justice Kissoon posited to the parties.

GTU’s attorney, Darren Wade, agreed with this new approach and told the judge that his proposal was a “sensible” one which could advance the case faster.

However, when Justice Kissoon asked him if he had copies of the GTU’s minutes which he claim tells a “different narrative” from the MoE’s, he said: “It is not available. There may have records that they took personally, but there have never been actual minutes.”

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde who is also on record for the union, however, said that the minutes of the meeting submitted by the state tell the false narrative that financial matters were discussed, which was contradictory to what the GTU is contending.

In response, Justice Kissoon reminded Forde that the respondent is contending that discussions took place and are still ongoing and pointed out that the latter is of no concern to him.

“The continuing aspect is no concern to the court. But, the legitimacy of the industrial action, or the circumstances leading up to that are relevant to the issues that have to be determined,” the judge said.

BEWILDERED

While all of this was unfolding, Nandlall was clearly taken aback.

“I want to begin by professing my bewilderment in the way this case has been unfolding,” he said before dissecting what was being proposed by the court.

He added, “If the facts are not established then they are not established. That’s part of my bewilderment.”

Nandlall seized upon the absence of GTU’ minutes, stating that this was a critical blow to the union’s credibility as he emphasised the fundamental importance of factual evidence in substantiating claims brought before the court, particularly in a case of such significance.

Justice Kissoon, however, told him that if he believed that the court was failing to get to the root of what constituted the substance of the discussions or whether financial matters were under consideration or negotiation, he was free to seek redress.

“I regret that you are bewildered. But that is what the court will attempt to do to get as much assistance and to get all of the documents that are available to assist me in rendering a decision that is just and fair and being fully informed with the assistance of all of the parties,” Justice Kissoon told Nandlall.

Nevertheless, with the absence of any other document, both parties agreed for the case to proceed and GTU’s Vice President (VP) Julian Cambridge was called to the stand to be cross-examined.

Under cross-examination, from MoE’s attorney, Darshan Ramdhani KC, Cambridge acknowledged that the government implemented some salary increases without engaging in collective bargaining.

He conceded that various financial considerations, including duty-free concessions, housing funds, and scholarships, were discussed between the GTU and the Ministry of Education.

Benefits such as travel allowances and increased salaries for certain teachers were addressed during the meeting, with some exclusive benefits to union members.

Discussions also revolved around scholarships, contingent on programme accreditation from the Guyana Online Academy of Learning (GOAL).

While 3,800 GOAL scholarships were made available during talks in 2024, Cambridge couldn’t recall the exact number of meetings held between the union and the ministry since 2020.

Ramdhani put to Cambridge that financial matters were discussed during a meeting held between MoE and GTU on January 31, to which he replied “no”.

“It is my understanding that this process was that the Ministry of Education was trying to improve financial awards that were being given to teachers in the system. Isn’t that what this was aiming to do,” Ramdhani asked Cambridge, which replied with “yes.”

Cambridge later acknowledged that financial matters as proposed by the union were discussed in the statutory meetings with the Education Ministry.

Wade maintained that collective bargaining between the two parties was not done.

“While you may say collective bargaining was not done, if the parties engage in discussions about specific matters, that may fall under the head of the welfare and improvement of the members of the union, then the argument may be raised that it forms part of collective bargaining in the ordinary context,” the judge put to Wade, which he conceded to.

STRONGLY REJECTED

Hussain was later called to the stand where he was questioned about something Cambridge had said.

Cambridge had earlier told the court that allowances for educators engaged in teaching practice at the Cyril Potter College of Education (CPCE) were unpaid.

“I would have to refute that, that position. In preparing this affidavit, I got the figure of $15,511, 149; I got those from the payment vouchers,” Hussain said as he strongly rejected Cambridge’s claim.

The matter stands adjourned until Thursday at 13:00 hours, with Hussain returning for cross-examination.

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

However, on March 12, talks between the GTU and the MoE broke down 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 discuss only salary matters concerning the prior years and refused to address the other 25 matters which were identified for discussion by both the Ministry of Education and the union.

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

On Tuesday, GTU withdrew its application seeking to force the MoE into discussions regarding teachers’ salary increases for the period 2019 to 2023.