The family of the late Seon Scott says that he never received any kind of formal training from the Guyana Power and Light Company (GPL) or the private contractor he was working for at the time he was fatally burnt by a livewire last month.
Scott, 19, had sustained severe electrical burns after being struck by a live wire during a job at Bath Settle-ment, West Coast Berbice on February. He succumbed a week later in the Intensive Care Unit of the Georgetown Public Hospital (GPH).
GPL Chief Executive Offi-cer (CEO) Bharat Dindyal had told Stabroek News that all of the company’s technical employees, as well as those of sub-contractors it utilises, are adequately trained to carry out their responsibilities. Dindyal said that the employees go through different levels of training, which sees them becoming more and more competent as they progress. He added that they are even issued certificates of competence as they progress as testament to their training. He did, however, say that he was currently unaware of any training that Scott would have received.
But according to the man’s aunt, who also lived with him, before Scott became an official employee of the Berbice sub-contracting firm he was employed with at the time of his death, he used to tag along with his older brother, who also works with the firm. The man’s aunt said that he would usually go with his older brother as they went around West Berbice working on various projects. This, she said, is how Scott gained the knowledge of the job he eventually applied for and got. The woman said that as far as she was aware, Scott was never formally trained by GPL or the firm.
Secretary General of the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE) had raised concerns about whether or not the young man had been trained.
Joseph had explained that GPL usually sub-contracts many of its operations to employers whose workforce largely consists of inadequately-qualified personnel. Joseph said that positions, such as those held by Scott, require that the individual be formally trained and be somewhat proficient in carrying out the required responsibilities. He said that in most cases, the persons used by sub-contractors lack the necessary formal training to carry out such work, even though they may have some amount of experience in the field.
Joseph had also revealed that GPL had neglected to inform the Ministry of Labour of Scott’s accident, and subsequent death. He revealed that the Ministry was made aware of the incident during at a meeting between GPL, NAACIE and Minister Nanda K Gopaul to discuss an ongoing wage dispute. This meeting was held a full week after the young man had been injured, and one day after he had died.
This, according to Chief Labour Officer Charles Ogle, constitutes a violation of Guyana’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) of 1997. Ogle yesterday confirmed that the sub-contractor had neglected to inform the ministry of the young man’s injury and subsequent death and said that the ministry had learned about it late. He said that contact was then made with GPL, which stated that that it was not at fault because the young man worked for a sub-contractor and not the company.
Ogle mentioned that the sub-contractor’s negligence in reporting the matter may have occurred as a result of its ignorance of the requirement. He said that there are many who still do not know or understand fully many of the regulations and requirements that exist.
Ogle stated that an investigation has been launched and that since GPL may not have in its records any certificates or other proof of training for Scott, he will be requesting contact with the sub-contractor, who should be able to provide confirmation, if any, of his training.
Joseph had suggested that because Scott’s employment was with the sub-contractor and not GPL, it diluted the union’s ability to ensure that these employees were represented since they were not unionised. He also opined that the arrangement provided some amount of “wiggle room” in terms of not honouring aspects of the OHSA.
According to Chapter 66 (1) of the Act, “in addition to providing information and instruction to a worker as required by section 46 (2) (a), an employer shall ensure that a worker exposed or likely to be exposed to a hazardous chemical or to a hazardous physical agent receives, and that the worker participates in, such instruction and training as may be prescribed.” This training is to be implemented by the employer with the guidance of the safety and health representatives and is to be done at least annually.
However, Gopaul stated last week that the Act applies to GPL as well as any other entity it would have sub-contracted. As a result, if either of the entities was guilty of not training its employees, it would be in violation of the OHSA.
