Dear Editor,
I write concerning the issue of the ‘Telecoms pensioners’.
The superannuation benefits of former employees of Guyana Telecommunications Corpora-tion (GTC) were governed by the prescriptions of the Pensions Act, Chapter 27:02, applicable to public servants.
In 1990, the Government of Guyana and Atlantic Tele-Network (ATN) signed an agreement in which ATN acquired eighty per cent of the telephone corporation and the government retained twenty. When this agreement was consummated, the new Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company Limited (GT&T) replaced the Guyana Telecom-munication Corporation, and employees of GTC were transferred to GT&T with effect from 1991. Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company Limited became a private company from 1991 and the Pensions Act ceased to apply forthwith.
Those employees who were transferred to GT&T have service both with GTC, a public corporation, and GT&T, a private company.
The Pensions Act does not recognize service with a private company. As such, the two types of service are not continuous.
Those employees who attained the retirement age after 1991 are being compensated for their period of service up to 1991 under the Pensions Act, Chapter 27:02.
Because the computed pensions of all those retirees is very small, (less than the minimum pension payable), on account of the minimal years of service rendered up to 1991 and the low salaries earned at 1991, they all have been upgraded to the minimum pension payable, ie, half of the minimum wage.
Thus, all are in receipt of the same pensions. Their pensions have been correctly computed under the Pensions Act.
There could not have been any ‘clause’ or ‘agreement’ in the letters of transfer or otherwise to the effect that ‘their services would be continuous and unbroken’ since no provision exists for such under the Pensions Regulations.
In my over thirty years examining superannuation claims, I have seen much recklessness committed by organizations as well as employees. In their younger days, people jump from job to job, organization to organization, through transfers, appointment, contracted service, secondment, resignation, etc. Such indiscretions return to haunt many at the time of retirement.
Many persons in the public service are not au fait with the rules and regulations governing their employment.
In this case, I do not think that the employees in question are to be blamed. They were misled. But they should be paid for their post 1991 service, by someone. Weren’t they put on some kind of pension plan with GT&T? If not, this is a fatal error and their representative should be held responsible.
Yours faithfully,
R Balbadar
Asst Auditor General (rtd)
