Dear Editor,
Collective bargaining involves a process of proposals, counter proposals, compromise and consensus.  Discussions throughout this process commence at the bilateral level and may end with the involvement of the Ministry of Labour.  The entire proceedings require compliance with the grievance procedure as outlined in the Collective Labour Agreement, inclusive of arbitration if the issue is deadlocked at conciliation.

Resort to arbitration can be by mutual consent or by either party as stated in the agreement.  Where it is by mutual consent the procedure can be frustrated if one party refuses to accept arbitration as an option.  When it is by either party, the ministry can negotiate terms of reference with the willing party, or alternatively impose arbitration under the Labour Act if the issue is sufficiently detrimental to the national interest to warrant such intervention.

So, given the procedures outlined above, why is the bauxite issue being prolonged without resolution, and what aspect of the laws are being violated by the Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc (BCGI) and the Ministry of Labour?

If BCGI at the request of the Ministry of Labour is refusing to discuss the issues at conciliation, then it is guilty of violating the Collective Labour Agreement, since the Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union (GB&GWU) is still the recognized union and there is some semblance of normalcy.  If the ministry is not making any effort to persuade BCGI to discuss the issues at conciliation, then the ministry can be perceived as aiding and abetting the company in violating the agreement.

The ministry can prosecute the company for violating the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act with respect to the dismissals, but cannot do so since the dismissals now become an issue within the ambit of the grievance procedure under the Collective Labour Agreement.

Applying for Trade Union Recognition is a normal process, whether there is an incumbent union or not, provided the application is in keeping with the provisions of the Trade Union Recognition Act.  The determination of majority support and compliance with the act is a function of the Trade Union Board which is an integral part of the Ministry of Labour.

So, if the process is flawed and in violation of the act as alleged by the union, why is the ministry reluctant to enforce the provisions of the act?

The concern of not referring the issue to compulsory arbitration under the Labour Act is understandable, given the haste with which the GAWU issue was referred, but can the ministry do so if the issues were not fully ventilated under the grievance procedure?  In the case of GAWU and GuySuCo, the entire procedure was exhausted prior to arbitration. So, the question is, were the issues fully discussed in keeping with the grievance procedure and if not why not?

There is a dire need to have this issue resolved since emotions are running high that may eventually lead to irrational behaviour.  Are we waiting for this to happen?

Yours faithfully,
D Sookdeo