There appeared in the newspapers a number of letters and articles relative to the situation at the Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc (BCGI). Some letters mentioned my name and made certain insinuations; I did not plan to respond but when the elder politician, Mr Eusi Kwayana got involved I think I owe him the respect of letting him know the facts so he can be better able to appreciate the situation.
Mr Kwayana said that he learnt of the dispute through an email circulated by the WPA. Maybe the actions of the Guyana Bauxite and General Workers Union (GB&GWU) were more political than industrial and the workers were used as pawns.
Please allow me to state the facts
The company and the union commenced negotiations for 2009 on January 19, 2009. The talks were intermittent. The bauxite industry worldwide is severely affected by the economic recession and the union indicated their appreciation of the situation and so did not press for conclusion of the negotiations early, hoping that things would get better.
In the latter half of the year, the union proposed that the company and the union pen a joint letter to the government seeking a tax concession for overtime work. The union said that if the concession were granted until the financial situation of the company improved, it would assist both the company and the union. The joint letter and a subsequent reminder were sent.
A reply not having been received, the union sent an ultimatum to the company asking that the parties meet to conclude the negotiations.
A meeting was held and the union said their final position (demand) was 10%.
The company faced with a virtual ultimatum responded with three proposals:-
1. the company would pay 10% but would have to terminate 75 employees;
2. the company would pay 10% but would have to reduce working hours from 12 hours to 8 hours per day;
3. the safety bonus would be paid tax free.
Let me explain proposal three above. The company pays the workers a certain percentage of their wages for each month that there is no downtime due to accident.
The bonus is paid in December and it is not an entitlement under the Collec-tive Labour Agreement, but is paid by the company in the interest of Occupational Health and Safety.
The bonus is taxed as is required under the tax laws. Many workers requested that the safety bonus be paid tax free in lieu of a salary increase, as they appreciated the company’s financial position. The company agreed and that was put to the union; it meant that the company would pay workers their gross bonus and would pay the equivalent taxes to the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) on behalf of the employees.
The union advised that it would accept option one. In fact, in a letter accepting option one, the union restated option one, word for word. So far so good.
However, at a meeting on November 20, 2009, the union said it would only sign an agreement for 10% and not the condition that 75 persons would be terminated.
The meeting ended without an agreement being signed and both parties agreed that they would request that the Chief Labour Officer meet with them on (Tuesday) November 24, 2009.
Lo and behold! The workers took industrial action on (Sunday) November 22, 2009. In addition to striking, the workers marched on the residential compound and others areas of the company (airstrip, roads).
On (Tuesday) November 24, 2009, the parties met under the chairmanship of the Chief Labour Officer to resolve the strike; the attempt failed.
A resolution was within grasp as both parties wanted a settlement but it was not pursued.
That opportunity having been lost, the workers led by union leaders during the night blocked and barricaded the roads, etc; the police and army had to intervene. This took place although the Chief Labour Officer had fixed another meeting for (Thursday) November 26, 2009.
The company subsequently dismissed fifty-seven persons for riotous actions. Note, one hundred and forty-three were on strike but only fifty-seven were dismissed. A senior executive of the union and a member of the union’s negotiating team who was on strike, but did not engage in the riot, was not dismissed and is back on the job.
I wish to say that the strike was called in breach of the Collective Labour Agreement and the law. The union does not feel bound to work by the agreement. It refused to go to conciliation and called strikes indiscriminately.
The company sees these acts as repudiation of the Collective Labour Agreement and by letter of December 1, 2009 advised the union that it accepted the repudiation and viewed the Collective Labour Agreement as being terminated.
Mr Lincoln Lewis said that when the GB&GWU, was seeking recognition for Oldendorff workers, a perusal of the company’s record was conducted to verify the authenticity of workers’ signatures in addition to interviewing those who signed the union membership form, and that was the first and only time in the history of Guyana this has ever happened. I categorically say that persons were not interviewed, this has never happened as part of the verification process. The practice is that the signatures on the application forms are matched with the signatures on the company’s payroll.
In the case of the Oldendorff survey the officer conducting the survey found that a number of signatures did not match. When the board received the officer’s report, a TUC member of the board was not satisfied but when shown the documents had to concede. That is the fact; maybe the board should have called in the police.
The union claimed that the company miscalculated and was caught off-guard when the workers accepted option 1. Well! The workers – so the union claimed – accepted option 1 and the company was ready to sign but the union walked away. Who miscalculated and was caught off-guard?
BCGI is not anti-union or anti-worker. Payment of a safety bonus of its own volition is proof of this, and it is willing to work with any union that acts responsibly.
In closing I wish to say that all the writers on this subject have projected the company as the devil incarnate and the union as angels. None, except a Kaieteur News editorial, has been objective; I can understand Mr Lincoln Lewis, for he is the General Secretary of the union, but others like Mr Corbin should advise the union and let them correct their mistakes.
Yours faithfully,
Mohamed Akeel
