Dear Editor,
It will be appreciated if you could allow me to respond to a statement allegedly made by Mr Jairam Petam, Human Resources Director, Guysuco in an article titled “Strike Cripples LBI Estate” in your Friday, March 9, 2007 edition.
According to the article Mr Petam contended that I said one thing during a meeting with Guysuco’s labour officials and then shared a different position in a meeting which involved all the parties. Further he contended that at the meeting with Guysuco’s labour officials, I said that the company’s decision to dismiss one of its workers was in good order.
I wish to state that the statement by Mr Petam is inaccurate.
Two Industrial Relations officers from Guysuco did visit my office enquiring about the law as it relates to disciplinary action against workers taking strike action.
I advised that an employee’s participation in industrial action in conformity with any law or collective labour agreement does not constitute cause for dismissal or disciplinary action.
The dismissal of Singh was never discussed. In fact, one of the officers attempted to give me a document, which I suspect might have been a brief on the issue, but I declined to accept it, saying I did not want to prejudice my thoughts in case I had to intervene.
I was not aware of the facts until I met with the company and union on March 6, 2007.
I could not have made a pronouncement at the meeting with the Guysuco officials as I didn’t know the facts and then without hearing the other side.
When I met the parties on March 6, 2007, and having listened to both sides, I said that Guysuco could not prove that Singh organized, mobilized and instigated the strike as claimed and suggested that Guysuco vary its decision.
It must be emphasized that Singh was not dismissed for striking but for organizing, mobilizing and instigating the strike.
Yours faithfully,
Mr M Akeel (AA)
Chief Labour & Occup. Safety &
Health Officer
Ministry of Labour, Human
Services and Social Security
