Dear Editor,
I make reference to an article captioned ‘Wales workers needed timelier info on estate closure, PM admits’ that was carried in your February 13 edition. There the Prime Minister in the budget debate in Parliament on February 12 is quoted as saying that “the government had not properly informed workers of the impending closure of the Wales sugar estate”. I could not agree with the Prime Minister more. He has endorsed what I have stated in an earlier missive that the closure of Wales Estate was badly handled.
Editor, the closure of the estate has reeked of inconsistences and secrecy from the surprise announcement of the Ministry of Agriculture that the estate would be closed at the end of this year, to the Chairman of the Board of Directors stating that it was a board decision to Mr Tony Vieira stating on February 7 that GuySuCo’s CEO “met with and sought permission from the MOA about the closure” of the estate and “having obtained agreement to do so then brought it to the board to be ratified”. It was not until the Ministry of the Presidency stated that the
decision was made by cabinet that final clarity was brought to the matter.
It’s obvious from all the confusion that no serious thought was given to the communication and legal procedures in handling this matter. The Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act clearly stipulates the proper procedure, which in the circumstances was clearly not adhered to. There was obviously no proper preparation in terms of the deployment and severance of workers, since at the sole meeting with the unions, corporate management failed to provide any tangible information on the fate of the 1,700 workers. One would have thought that when the CEO “met and sought permission from the MOA about the closure” he would have been well informed about details on the deployment and the severance of employees, and strategies to deal with the movement of the farmers’ cane from Wales to Uitvlugt. Such details and strategies could have been ventilated at engagements with the unions and farmers. From all reports there were no such details, at least not from the single engagement with the unions.
Editor, it could be recalled that GuySuCo’s CEO stated at his end-of-year remarks last year that the cooperation and dedication of management and workers and the absence of political interference were the main factors that contributed to the company surpassing its annual target after several years. In the case of the CEO seeking the MOA’s permission to close the estate, obtaining an agreement to do so and then bringing it to the board to be ratified, doesn’t this qualify as political interference? Ideally, in proper corporate governance under a state board like GuySuCo, management is supposed to bring a proposal to the board, which is a politically-appointed entity, to justify the closure of the estate, and if the board agrees with the proposal then it endorses it and the chairman seeks the minister’s ratification. The minister then decides if the matter needs the intervention of the cabinet. Maybe in the current scheme of things the rules of the game have been changed, and are guided by the “law” that Mr Vieira referred to in his letter on February 7.
Editor, I would suggest that in the interest of avoiding all future confusions and confrontations that corporate management articulates a workable proposal that takes the interest of the future of the 1,700 workers on deployment and severance as well as that of 800 cane farmers, and the future diversification of agriculture activities on the lands into account, and present same to the government for approval. Such a proposal should include the securing of the estate’s fixed assets and lands against illegal squatting. Thereafter, a communications strategy needs to be developed on the engagements with unions and workers, in compliance with the relevant labour law. There can be no short cut to a procedure that has at stake the lives of 1,700 workers and thousands of indirect dependents on the Wales sugar estate.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Parmanand
