Unions NAACIE and GTUC yesterday rebuffed suggestions by former Chief Labour Officer Mohamed Akeel that Labour Minister Dr Nanda Gopaul may not have adhered to the legal procedure required for creating and implementing the new National Minimum Wage Order.
“We would like to state that much more was done in accordance with the law on this issue than he ever attempted to do when he was Chief Labour Officer,” the unions said in a joint statement. The unions are members of the tripartite committee which considered and helped birth the new order.
In a detailed letter published in last Friday’s edition of the Stabroek News, Akeel said that the procedure used by the minister may have violated Section 8 of the Labour Act, Cap 98:1, the law under which the order was made.
He said that the Act requires the minister, after deeming it expedient to regulate the wage paid in any occupation in Guyana, to appoint an advisory committee to investigate and make recommendations as to the minimum rates of wages which should be payable.
After these recommendations are made and an order decided on, Akeel said, the minister is then required to publish the notice of his intention to make the order, of the place where copies of the draft order may be obtained, and the time, which shall not be less than 30 days, within which any objection with respect to the draft order must be sent to the minister.
Akeel said that to his knowledge, and based on information he had received, this procedure had not been followed.
In a joint statement, however, Kenneth Joseph, General Secretary of the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE), and Norris Witter, President of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) yesterday said that all of the necessary procedures needed to implement the order were followed and accused Akeel of acting in the interest of those who wished to keep paying small salaries to their workers.
The unions said that a subcommittee of the tripartite committee, which consisted of Joseph, Witter, Consultant Adviser of the Consultative Association of Guyanese Industry Ltd (CAGI) Samuel Goolsarran, and several others, deliberated on the issue of a new national minimum wage, and the fact a new minimum wage order was to be implemented in 2013 was made public.
The unions argue that they were informed by Goolsarran and other CAGI representatives that every step of the deliberations was informed by the business community through regular consultations. In fact, the unions said that members of the business community were summoned to meetings every two months to discuss industrial relations matters.
Akeel, however, said that his interaction with members of the private sector revealed that they were not included in the deliberative process until the implementation of the order was imminent. He also said that the many of them indicated that CAGI was not a representative of their businesses. CAGI has been blamed for not adequately disseminating information to the private sector representatives—a charge that Goolsarran has rejected.
The unions, on the other hand, said that CAGI is the recognised business entity by the Internal Labour Organisation (ILO) on the Tripartite Committee.
They also said that after the minimum wage issue was approved at the tripartite level in February 2013, it was taken to Cabinet by Gopaul for its no-objection, after which “we were told that Cabinet set up a Ministerial Task Force to look at the issue, a position which “was made public by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon.”
In addition to Luncheon’s statements, the unions said that Gopaul, during the 2013 budget debates, while responding to a question from the opposition, said that a new minimum wage with working hours would be implemented shortly. Furthermore, the unions said that the minister, in his May Day address, indicated that he had draft regulations on his desk, which he was looking at for the implementation of a new national minimum wage order. They added that more publicity about the order was given by the President.
“His Excellency, President Donald Ramotar also on the eve of Guyana’s independence on May 25, 2013 indicated quite clearly and emphatically that the government of Guyana will introduce a new minimum wage of $35,000 and a 40-hour work week,” the statement said.
The unions argued that even more publicity was given by way of advertisements in the national newspapers, and in the Gazette more than a month prior to the July 1, 2013 deadline for the implementation of the order.
During this time, they said, the order was tabled in the National Assembly and was not opposed by members of the business community.
As such, the unions said, the procedures necessary for the implementation of the order were exhausted and the duration was quite significant. “Attempts therefore to put the issue on hold can only be seen as a deliberate attempts at procrastination,” the unions argued.
They did, however, concede that the order may be plagued by some technical flaws, but said that that these issues should not be the reason for the order being repealed. Akeel had said that the order created anomalies which, for example, could see an unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and clerical worker in an enterprise receiving the same rate.
Furthermore, the unions accused Akeel of speaking out on behalf of “big business,” particularly garment manufacturers whose employees are not unionised.
“It should be mentioned that garment manufacturers had a free reign for in excess of 10 years, and even when wage increases were announced for certain categories of workers, they were not affected since it was felt that this group was at an initial stage of job creation and tapping into the overseas market. After this extended holiday period, we find it difficult to believe that they cannot pay workers a minimum wage of $35,000 per month or US$40 per week,” they said.
Akeel also said that the 40-hour, five-day work week order did not make provisions for companies whose employees worked more than five days, but less than the 40 hour limit. Yesterday, Joseph, speaking to Stabroek News, said that there are avenues through which these flaws can be corrected, but dismissed the need for the recalling of the order all together. The union explained that the flaws may have be caused by the existence of archaic laws which may have to be amended considering the modern reality, thereby avoiding the issues of conflict raised by Akeel.
Akeel, however, in his letter, urged the government to re-examine the process which led to the order’s creation, and, if it was found that his concerns where valid, repeal the order “and make another order, done professionally, taking all views into consideration as I have been advised by members of the PSC, GMA, the Chambers of Commerce, etc, that their organisations were not consulted but rather that CAGI, which does not represent them, pushed for the order.”
