It should be noted that the seeds of the most recent eruption of unrest germinated in early November 2009. It means essentially that the Ministry of Labour has stood by for virtually two months witnessing what seems to be an intractable breakdown between the two sides without embarking upon the process that begins with conciliation and possibly ends at compulsory arbitration. Minister Nadir’s hopefulness of an amicable settlement at his end-of-year press conference is misplaced given the hardening differences between the two sides..
At that very press conference Minister Nadir lamented the high number of strikes for 2009 – mainly in the sugar industry – and remarked upon the lost wages and productivity. Surely it must have dawned upon the minister that any protracted strike in any sector is detrimental not only to the economy but to the pockets of workers and their job stability and these are not matters to be trifled with.
Minister Nadir would also be acutely aware that in a deeply divided society as this one is that comparisons will be drawn between his ministry’s handling of the recent strikes in the sugar industry and the withdrawal of labour in the bauxite mines. He cannot, as he attempted to do at his press conference, reasonably defend his ministry’s stance on the grounds of the importance of the sugar industry and the fact that BCGI is not the only bauxite company in the country. That is perhaps an argument that may be deployed in relation to the essential services but each industrial dispute has to be treated on its merits and always with the awareness that the welfare of workers – whether sugar, bauxite or paper recycling – is at stake and there must be labour justice. Moreover, the bauxite industry remains in the doldrums and under severe stress. Any interruption of production and limiting of sales even into a protected and guaranteed market would be a significant blow to the standing and credibility of the industry.
The ministry’s seeming lack of interest in the bauxite dispute has easily become fodder for those who argue that because sugar is inextricably tied up with the politics and political economy of the PPP government that it had to be settled with dispatch.
Notwithstanding the uninspired presentation by the GB&GWU of its case and its jumbled positions, there are troubling circumstances in the present dispute that should have warranted immediate intervention by the Ministry of Labour – particularly if one were to put any stock in the working class credentials of this government.
First, the bauxite company is now being advised by the former Chief Labour Officer, Mohammed Akeel. Mr Akeel was previously the person who would be expected to be the chief conciliator in disputes like this. As in other sensitive positions, there should be an adequate cooling off period during which holders should be debarred from participating in sectors where they were previously arbiters or should be banned outright. As it is, BCGI has a substantial advantage over the GB&GWU and may also have an inside track on what is transpiring within the labour ministry itself.
Second, the strike has been attended by unsavoury accusations of intimidation, duplicity and union-busting among other things. Under these circumstances it is unlikely that there could be a sufficiently restorative atmosphere allowing for mature agreement.
Third, BCGI took the unnecessary step of declaring the Collective Labour Agreement between the two sides breached and abrogated. This surely should have been the point at which the ministry intervened to ensure that there wasn’t an irreversible breakdown between the two sides. Before long, BCGI was denouncing the union and boldly stating that it would be moving to have the union de-recognised, a matter strictly in the purview of the Trade Union Recognition and Certification Board but certainly one that seemed over the top. Even then the ministry appeared unmoved by the gravity of the situation.
Fourth, it is unclear whether workers have returned to their jobs under duress and if the conditions that they are now operating under at Aroaima are acceptable.
Fifth, BCGI, an offspring of one of the premier oligarchs of post-communist Russia, Oleg Deripaska, has not been known to have an open and transparent relationship with important local stakeholders. There have been valid concerns about labour practices in Deripaska operations globally and other issues. It would certainly not be a good idea for the ministry to adopt a hands-off attitude in this case.
Sixth, it appears to the public that the government has had a cosy relationship with the Deripaska outfit because of the difficulty of attracting investment to the bauxite industry and perhaps in light of other investment promises which have been made by the group but which have become more distant because of the global financial crisis. Whatever the circumstances, the Ministry of Labour has to show that it is uninfluenced by any consideration other than a stalemate being reached between the two sides.
For these reasons it is imperative that the ministry act immediately to settle this dispute. The GB&GWU has had to content itself with brittle expressions of support from other unions and solidarity messages from abroad. The TUC has been completely ineffective having lost the active participation of key affiliates such as the GLU and the GPSU. It leaves unions like the GB&GWU and their members at the mercy of the political elements.
