Dear Editor,
The leaders of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG) have declared that the Trade Union Recognition and Certification Board was appointed in violation of the Trade Union Recognition Act. They are correct.
They claim that the allocation of one seat to FITUG and two seats to the TUC is a violation of the Act. Again they are correct.
What is not correct is the allocation of members (seats) to FITUG and the TUC.
In 2013, when the Board was reconstituted, I wrote (SN, Sep 20, 2013) that, when the Minister sought nomination from the TUC and FITUG, he acted outside the law, but the flaw was not rectified.
Section 5(1) (b) of the Act which was enacted in 1997 stated “three members appointed by the Minister on the nomination of such association as in his opinion is the most representative association of Trade Unions”.
The above speaks of association (singular) of Trade Unions. As such the TUC which was and still is the most representative Association of Trade Unions was the association nominating members as workers’ representatives. Similarly CAGI nominated the employers’ members.
However, in 2009, by Amendment Act No 1 of 2009, the principal act of 1997 was amended to read: “three members appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the most representative organizations of workers.” “Association of Trade Unions” was out and replaced by “Organisations of Workers”, the singular association replaced by plural organisations and trade unions replaced by workers.
One may want to argue that TUC and FITUG comprise unions and the unions represent workers, so by extension TUC and FITUG represent workers. That was not the intention of the amendment and cannot be interpreted as such. If the intention was to allow FITUG to join TUC in nominating members then all that was necessary was to replace association (singular) of trade unions with associations (plural) of trade unions. The law does not allow for TUC and FITUG to be consulted.
It is necessary for the Minister and her staff to ascertain the most representative organisations of workers, maybe the three unions with the largest membership, and seek their nominations; the unions’ audit reports and their annual returns submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions can be used.
Before I retired I had drafted a Bill to amend the Trade Unions Act; one amendment would have required unions to have annual audits. The present law allows unions to decide when their books should be audited. Apparently the amendment, along with some others, was pigeonholed.
In similar fashion CAGI cannot be the sole employers’ organization to nominate employers’ members as “association of employers” was replaced with “organisations of employers.”
Had my observation in 2013 been acted upon, the present quarrel would not have arisen as the Chief Labour Officer and the current Minister would have followed the correct procedure/precedent.
The FITUG leaders did not see it fit in 2013 to ask the Minister to follow the law as they got two members, but now the shoe is on the other foot.
The leaders of FITUG are protesting also the composition of the Tripartite Committee. This committee is not established by law so the Minister has a free hand. She should, however, take into consideration and be guided by the following ILO instruments:-
1) Recommendations No 113 ‒ concerning consultation and co-operation between public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organisations at the industrial and national levels.
2) Convention No 144 – concerning tripartite consultations to promote the implementation of international labour standards and its accompanying Recommendation No 152.
Yours faithfully,
Mohamed Akeel