Following lengthy debate and polling of MPs, a bill which disallows strike action without “due procedure” for a large portion of the workforce, was passed in the National Assembly yesterday.
It was voted for by 31 government MPs and against by 20 opposition members, after a division was called for by PNCR front bencher Lance Carberry who along with colleagues insisted that the people see how everyone voted for a piece of legislation which , “is another salvo against the hapless worker and trades union in Guyana.”
PNCR MP Basil Williams led the opposition in the debate, noting that not only did the bill widen the list of essential services to now include Air Traffic Controllers, but it also deepened it to affect a larger number of workers. He argued that the government should have brought an independent essential services bill to Parliament instead of seeking to amend the 1956 Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act.
Air Traffic Controllers who were under the spotlight earlier this year after they planned and executed strike action which effectively closed the airport at night, have been placed under ‘essential services’. Once President Bharrat Jagdeo assents to the bill, strike action by any of the listed essential services could only occur after due procedure. This will see a tribunal being set up with members primarily appointed by the minister of labour and discussions held with all parties involved; only after due consideration can any strike action then occur.
The bill lists essential services as:
*any dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels or related service;
*any direct or indirect production, storage, distribution, sale, delivery or supply of potable water;
*any direct or indirect generation, transmission, sale or supply of electricity; *any service essential to the continued provision of telecommunications; any health care or related service operated by: (i) the Georgetown Public Hospital Board, (ii) any other public corporation established under the Public Corporations Act 1988, (iii) a public hospital, (iv) the government, (v) a local authority;
● any air traffic control service,
● any service provided by the Transport and Harbours Department or the Maritime Authority;
● any service related to drainage and irrigation;
● any cemetery, scavenging or solid waste services of a municipality;
● the marketing and distribution services of all petroleum and allied products.
In strong opposition to the bill’s proposals Williams insisted that the government was trying its utmost to control the labour force and dictate their actions. Coming against the backdrop of a global recession as well as a split trade union movement, he said, the bill sought to further divide it.
“This bill purports to parachute a modern trend into a pre-colonial act… instead they should bring an independent act with modern machinery,” Williams insisted. He said he felt the intention was to establish a stranglehold over trade unions and workers.
“How could we agree to this when the people are already receiving starvation wages and now if they strike they have to pay these large fines from the money they get?” he asked.
Williams also told the National Assembly that the bill was nothing but repressive and illiberal and added that the Chief Labour Officer should be the one to oversee the process of deciding whether industrial action is needed and not the minister.
He said the bill sought to criminalise workers who already have to contend with the Value Added Tax system and being paid under the inflation rate.
“They are now massa and so they want to use the big wig,” was the sentiment of Guyana Action Party (GAP), Rise organize and Rebuild (ROAR) MP Everall Franklyn.
He said he felt the PPP had a tradition in respect of fighting for the rights of workers but was now using The United Force (TUF) representative – a reference to Minister of Labour Manzoor Nadir – to bring legislation to control the people they once represented.
“But what is also essential is that this government [should] manage… [to improve] conditions so workers would have less need to strike,” he emphasized.
He said it was sad that the party was also now seeking to pass this legislation on the heels of the passing of one of its leaders who was pivotal in great struggles for workers’ rights.
He proposed that sugar workers also come under essential services since sugar was the largest industry as it pays for much of the other services.
Alliance For Change MP Khemraj Ramjattan pointed out that strike action was the weapon which workers have in their arsenal, a right which must continue.
“We recognize that government has a duty but we must not utilize the weapon of a 1956 era to ensure that workers’ rights are taken away,” he stressed. He too said he felt that the intention of the bill was uncharacteristic of a party which struggled for workers’ rights adding that labour relations involved consensus and compromise.
He said it was unfair for the government to use the public interest argument to support its stance, adding that in modern times like these, there was need for a better approach. “The dignity that a Guyanese citizen has is like the right to strike to workers,” he added.
Labour Minister Nadir, Transport Minister Robeson Benn and MP Norman Whittaker argued that the bill still allowed strike action but there must be procedure. They all maintained that the bill came against the background of continued support for the working class.
Nadir admitted it was not a simple bill, but added that the necessary changes had to be made to reflect today’s reality in terms of the services listed.
Benn accused the opposition of politicking and pointed out that even if an independent essential services legislation had been taken before the house the opposition would still have opposed it.
After presentations by Williams and Nadir which went on for close to an hour, Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran deemed 50% of the contributions as having nothing to do with the bill.
None of the 20 opposition members present at yesterday’s sitting were in favour of the bill, but were outvoted by the government’s 31 members present.
The Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2009, seeks to amend the long title of the Principal Act so as to make it clear that the scope of the Act relates to settlement of disputes and prohibition of strikes and lock-outs in essential services.
It also seeks to amend Section 19 of the Principal Act “so as to enhance the fine specified in that section (for a lockout or fine contrary to the Act) to an amount more appropriate to the present and also to provide for the punishment of continuing offences”. Another clause in the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact the Schedule to the Principal Act with a new Schedule to comply with the International Labour Organisation’s definition of ‘essential services’.
The Bill was tabled in the National Assembly by Minister of Labour Nadir on April 23.
The amendment to Section 19 of the Principal Act states that “every person who contravenes or fails to comply with section 12 commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to (a) a fine not exceeding thirty thousand dollars and (b) if the offence is a continuing one, a further fine not exceeding one thousand dollars for every day or part of a day during which the offence continues”.
