The bauxite union in a press release has responded to the ERC’s statement carried in Stabroek News on February 8, 2010, titled “Ethnic relations body calls bauxite union’s statement ‘mischievous’”.
The union said it had “made a charge and expects the ERC to put the mechanism in place for a public inquiry where the union and others will have the opportunity to present their evidence based on the charge.”
Moreover, the union expressed surprise to learn that the ERC inaction so far to proceed with a public inquiry was dependent on a letter stating that “Mr. Carlton Sinclair is authorized to make a complaint on behalf of the union.”
“The Jan. 4, 2010 complaint made by the union was signed by Carlton Sinclair, GB&GWU Branch President, Aroaima/ Kwakawani Mines Operation,” the bauxite union pointed out.
It noted further that the team that made the presentation to the ERC on January 8, 2010 included Carlton Sinclair whom the ERC team met face-to-face.
And on January 13, 2010 the ERC team met Sinclair who hand-delivered a letter to them signed by him. In short Sinclair is no stranger to the ERC, neither is his role in the complaint, the GB&GWU emphasized.
Stands by statement
According to the union, it stands by the statement made in its Press Release of February 4, 2010 that “while it awaits a response from the ERC’s Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Yvonne Langevine, for the modalities and scheduled timing to commence a public inquiry that is ‘transparent and impartial’, the Chairman, Mr. Juan Edghill, has in the meanwhile visited the mines and interviewed workers.”
This statement, the union contended, is corroborated with the ERC’s admission that its Chairman Juan Edghill “held preliminary meetings with unionized workers.”
It is this very admission of an engagement with the “unionized workers” at the Bauxite Company Guyana Inc. that the union expressed concern about and made it known, the release noted.
The bauxite union “sees Mr. Edghill’s action as operating outside his scope and legal responsibility since the legality/illegality of a strike is not within the ERC’s mandate [and] the complaint was made by the union, not the workers, and as such Mr. Edghill should be respectful of the procedures and principles of engagement in such relationship.”
Since the union requested a public enquiry, it argued, “any engagement by the ERC with unionized workers at the BCGI is a departure from the union’s complaint. In the first instance the complaint was made by the union not the workers, and (in the) second instance the union requested a public inquiry that is transparent and impartial.”
So far, however, these are yet to be honoured by the ERC, but the union expects the ethnic relations body to “respect the union as the workers’ representative consistent with its recognition under the Trade Union Recognition Act.”
Meanwhile, the GB&GWU stated that “notwithstanding the facts, the union dispatched a letter today (February 8) to Ms. Yvonne Langevine (Chief Executive Officer, ERC, conforming authorization of Carlton Sinclair.”
‘Procedural requirement’ met
It is now hoped that having met this ‘procedural requirement’ the ERC would proceed with the January 4, 2010 complaint for a public inquiry, the union stated.
It also observed that the strategy of the ERC requesting a letter from the union “in order to proceed with a matter consistent with its constitutional responsibility and having had engagement with Carlton Sinclair at all times mirror a request made by Chief Labour Officer, Mr. Yoganand Persaud, which the union fulfilled by delivering a letter on December 30, 2009 and still awaits action by the Ministry to resolve the three-month old dispute at BCGI.”
The GB&GWU said it has taken note of this tactic and hopes that in the case of the ERC “this is not another excuse for inaction.”
In the meantime, citing the statement that “a team of ERC investigators revisited Linden on January 13 to take statements from persons whom the union had said were willing to make available information for the investigation but no one showed up,” the union noted that Sinclair had hand-delivered a letter to this team which stated “Our request for a public inquiry is yet to be addressed.”
Therefore, at this point the ERC’s request to interview workers “falls outside the parameters of acceptability” considering that there exists no known modality between the union and the ERC on the way forward.
Prima facie case
The union observed also that while the ERC is now saying, via the media, that “once a complaint is properly put forward to the Commission and prima facie case has been made out in keeping with its rules and procedures the Commission will proceed in an impartial and transparent manner to investigate”, this is unheard of.
The union needs to be apprised where in the ERC standard practice a prima facie case has to be established as a pre-requisite for a public inquiry?
The union made reference to the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) complaint against Dr. Kean Gibson’s book “The Cycle of Racial Oppression”. In this case, the union recalled, a charge was made by the IAC and a mechanism was then put in place to immediately commence a public inquiry that allowed for the presentation of evidence by the IAC and others based on the charge. The ERC did not seek to establish a prima facie case, the union maintained.
“Similarly, the union made a charge and expects the ERC to put the mechanism in place for a public enquiry where the union and others will have the opportunity to present their evidence based on the charge,” the release stressed.
The GB&GWU said further that it expects now that the requested letter has been submitted, the Commission will move to put in place the “modalities and scheduled timing” to address its complaint with the seriousness and immediacy it deserves.
