Dear Editor,
Among the myriad functions of the trade union movement, which consists of workers and union leaders united as one force, is the right, as per recognized trade union language to “militancy” and to “fight” in pursuit of common interest which includes the settlement of industrial disputes. Note the actions of individuals engaged in protest action under the umbrella of the union become the actions of the collective, ie the union and not the individual. This underpins the foundational premise of trade union unity and solidarity within unions and the entire trade union movement.
Trade unionists’ militancy can border on being seen or presented as sometimes overtly aggressive, and this may not always incur positive public opinion – a consequence that unionists must take into consideration when engaging in protest action and disputes, but which must not deter them.
However, regardless of how public opinion may perceive these, providing they do not contravene the laws of the land, then these are in keeping with the overt militancy and fighting spirit of unionists. Labour actions are enshrined in ILO Convention # 87 Part 1, Article 8(1) and labour laws, and it is these that must be the overriding factor in defining the action(s) of trade unionists.
In an industrial dispute the rules of engagement between management and workers are governed by equality of the two forces. Hence when unions enter into dispute or negotiate with the employer or government, they do so from a position of strength and not weakness. Trade unions face an even greater struggle being militant and fighting for social justice when operating in hostile environments such as ours. In this society the rights of individuals and the trade union movement to fundamental freedoms are constantly under threat. Unions must struggle to ensure that due process is followed so that the rights of workers are not violated even as theirs is understood and protected.
For instance, in the case of University of Guyana (UG) union leader Dr Patsy Francis, it is important to note that at the time of the behaviour deemed “unbecoming” by the Vice Chancellor, that she was not functioning as a subordinate UG lecturer, but rather as a leader of a trade union, with the right to freedom of expression and operating free from UG’s management decisions and influences. It is the right of the public and the university to disagree with her behaviour and even condemn it, but it is not their right to sanction her according to UG laws which do not govern her behaviour as a trade unionist.
Under the industrial relations principles no management of any institution can discipline an employee for work or activities conducted on behalf of the union, because it infringes on the individual’s right to freedom of association and pursuit of trade union activities in the effort to advance their members’ well-being. The prohibition of actions of Torts against Unions (9 of 1947) and the Laws of Guyana Chapter 98:03 7(1) also reinforces this.
It is therefore left for the Vice Chancellor since he finds the behaviour of the union leader to be “unbecoming” to formally notify the union of said concerns and of the need to engage in mutual respect. Usually, it entails lodging a complaint under the Grievance Procedure and the parties meeting to resolve their differences. In a civilized society, the accused, regardless of the crime, has a right to due process and social justice.
This call is not different from that made to the Guyana Police Force and wider society to respect the rights of those accused of crimes to be tried by a court of law and not be brutally gunned down on the assumption of guilt. The vigilante justice that we have grown accustomed to must not be allowed to permeate every facet of our social and even formal relationships. The failure to adhere to these principles and guidelines can be construed as part of the continuous attack on freedoms in this country, another attack on Labour’s independence, and the right of the workers and their representative to pursue just cause without interference by the employer.
Twisting the rules of engagement by calling for an apology from the trade union leader in the course of trade union action may also be interpreted as a ploy to sabotage union activity addressing the matter of Frederick Kissoon, et al.
This act and the political act of economic sabotage against Kissoon and his wife is an abuse of power and an effort to silence critics of the government and UG administration. It is another in the series of vile acts to drive fear into this society. The UG administration is urged not to bring this august body into disrepute by perpetuating this attack against the trade union movement based on imagery that some may perceive as distasteful. Such actions threaten the democratic practices of the UG as well as the pursuit of change and democracy in Guyana. It is the same disregard and violation that continue to affect bauxite workers at the Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc (BCGI) which further suggests that there is a developing culture that must be stopped with our collective will to return this country to internationally acceptable standards.
We can only do so by embracing laws and principles, because it is these instruments which guide and regulate the behaviour of individuals in the quest for creating a just society. In this journey our media, politicians, religious and civic society leaders have a very important role and this role must be guided by universal principles, laws and conventions, and not emotional judgment. Guyanese must work together to ensure that an individual’s rights are protected and institutional principles are embraced even as they guard against the red herrings of justice.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis