The Minister said yesterday that so far efforts to get the two entities to meet have been unsuccessful but he stressed that the Ministry had not given up on this meeting happening. Nadir opined that if this was to become a reality both the union and the company would have to compromise. He said that both sides feel wronged, even as he said that the bauxite company has recently given its side of the story.
The Minister, however, said he would not be drawn into commenting on assertions made by various trade unionists and other bodies which have accused his ministry of not doing enough in the matter.
He said that the Chief Labour Officer Yoganand Persaud has been working hard to address the matter. The Minister, however, said he would not intervene unless the Chief Labour Officer indicated to him that such action was necessary.
Asked whether arbitration was an option, the Minister answered in the affirmative and stated that this could either be voluntary or compulsory.
Nadir again stressed that any efforts made by the company to de-recognize the union would have to be addressed by the Trade Union Recognition and Certification Board. He, however, said that some workers of the company have formally indicated to the Chief Labour Officer their dissatisfaction with the union.
Meanwhile, the Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc (BCGI) broke its silence on its ongoing dispute with the GB&WU and is accusing the union of misleading the public about key elements of the negotiations between the two entities.
The BCGI, the subsidiary of the Russian Company RUSAL, placed an advertisement in yesterday’s edition of the Guyana Chronicle, where it responded to various accusations levelled against it by the union and other stakeholders.
Speaking about the Collective Labour Agreement (CLA), the Bauxite company said that it acted lawfully in terminating this agreement since the union has breached parts of it. The BCGI said that based on Article 46 of this agreement, the union and its members were prohibited from striking: “In view of the orderly procedure set forth in Article 11 of the Collective Labour Agreement…the union agrees that they will not cause or direct any industrial actions of any sort…further, no employee shall engage in any cessation of work or restriction of production during the term of the Agreement.”
According to the BCGI this article was breached by the union and its members in March, May and again in November of this year.
The company says that it has therefore treated the contract as repudiated or rejected by the union and has merely accepted this. “The union’s position is the BCGI must continue to adhere to this contract notwithstanding that it breaches it at will”, the company asserted.
The BCGI said that the last strike in November was caused by the deliberate misrepresentations by the General Secretary of the union. According to the company the union requested a 40% wage increase retroactive to January 2009 which it was unable to pay and instead three options were drawn up. These options were: “a retroactive 10 percent increase with a reduction of the workforce of approximately 14% or 75 persons”, or “a retroactive 10% increase, with a reduction of the shift hours from 12 to 8 hours per day” or a lump sum payment of the annual Safety Bonus tax by 31 December, 2009.”
“The GB&WU by letter dated 13 November 2009 signed by the General Secretary on behalf of the Union chose the first option”, the company said. “However, upon workers becoming angry, the General Secretary made a statement to the local media that the Union had never agreed to a reduction of the work force and that it had only agreed to the 10% percent increase”. The union contended that it was “the deliberate misrepresentation that BCGI had unilaterally taken a decision to reduce the work force when it was the union which chose that option, (that) led to the latest strike”. The company said that it is in possession of the letter signed by the General Secretary and that it will publish it at an appropriate time.
Meanwhile, the BCGI insists that it did not dismiss workers because of their membership of the GB&GWU. “All dismissals were for good and sufficient cause, namely, the refusal of some employees to obey instructions and their entry into restricted areas without permission and without proper protective gear.”
The company also says that it has not refused to recognize the union, nor has it “ever forced workers to sign a form requesting de-recognition of the union”. According to the company, over 40 percent of the company’s employees no longer wished the union to represent them and thereby it notified the union that it intended to seeks its de-recognition, which is permitted under section 31 of the Trade Union Recognition Act.
