Dear Editor,
The protest by the workers on Thursday, 18th February at the Mayor and City Council (M&CC) Georgetown, against their union, the Guyana Labour Union (GLU) and its leader, Carvil Duncan, is an interesting development, and needs to be addressed and contextualised not merely by how one feels, but within the laws, conventions, charters and time-honoured principles which are extant.
It is reported that the GLU was picketing the management of the city council, with which it has a collective labour agreement, from which flows disagreement between the two parties. The union was engaged in an exercise consistent with its constitutional right, with a view to getting the employer’s attention to have the parties come to the negotiation table to discuss and agree to issues that are outstanding.
In the course of the union picketing, workers were organised to come to picket the union (ie, counter picket) that has made an effort to advance and protect their rights as enshrined in Article 147 of the Guyana Constitution and Section 23(1) of the Trade Union Recognition Act.
Immediately on concluding the counter-picketing exercise the management of the city council issued a statement giving tacit support to the workers on the picket line against their own union. The council implied that the union did not inform the M&CC before it engaged in the picketing exercise. The M&CC got it wrong. In industrial relations principles there is no obligation on the part of the union to inform the employer that it will be picketing its premises, unless it involves a work stoppage.
In this case what is troubling is that while Carvil Duncan should do the decent thing and resign from his constitutional offices given that he is charged criminally and is before the court, and while his actions to date indicate he has no intention to do so, the workers must not be used to pursue an objective that undermines their rights. It is also important to note that President David Granger can exercise his power and authority under the laws to have Duncan removed from these offices.
As one examines the rights and responsibilities of the members of the trade union it is interesting to note that workers are always used as pawns in the pursuit of the leaders’ political objectives, to the point where they are engaging in acts in subverting their fundamental rights.
The industrial relations climate under the APNU+AFC government is troubling. The Guyana Teachers Union (GTU) is picketing every week and as reported by the media is prepared to go on a countrywide protest if the employer (the government) continues to refuse to resolve their grievances. The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) and National Association of Agriculture Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE) have matters outstanding since 2015 that GuySuCo (which is state-owned) is not attending to. The Guyana Bauxite and General Workers Union (GB&GWU) has matters outstanding for more than six years with the Bauxite Company Guyana Incorporated (BGCI), which is a company part owned by the Government of Guyana. This is an example of what is taking place in the industrial relations arena.
By some strange twist of fate this government has been able to attain unison on its programme to treat the labour movement with contempt. Unlike the PPP government that engaged in trade union segregation, and targeted unions they perceived not friendly to or independent of their administration, this government is sending a clear message that it is intolerant of the trade unions and is not prepared to allow them to exist consistent with their constitutional rights and responsibilities.
The trade union movement belongs to the workers and it is there to protect their interest, on and off the job, and must be dictated to by them and not external agencies/forces. Any group of workers who have problems with their leaders, such can be addressed within the rules of the organisation. It is against this backdrop every worker is urged to acquire a copy of the rules of their union, which will empower them to act accordingly and hold their leaders to account. To collude with the employer to undermine one’s union is tantamount to working against one’s interest. Removing Duncan from the GLU’s leadership cannot be done by sporadic protests, but by using the rules that authorise the members to do so.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
