Justice Brassington Reynolds on Monday ordered that a previously-issued injunction, which restrained GuySuCo from proceeding with the dismissal of Wales sugar estate workers, should remain in effect and that consultations between the company and workers’ unions should continue.
The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) and the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE) had moved to the High Court in May to challenge the dismissals.
On May 6, the unions managed to secure a temporary High Court order to prevent the sugar company from re-deploying and dismissing the sugar workers until a consultation is held between them and the corporation, in keeping with the law.
The Full Court granted the interim injunction based on an application by way of Notice of Motion that was filed on behalf of GAWU, which is represented by its General Secretary Seepaul Narine, and NAACIE, whose representative is its President Kenneth Joseph.
Attorney Anil Nandlall, who is representing the two entities, said that Justice Reynolds ordered that the injunction remain in effect after hearing legal arguments from himself and attorney Nikhil Ramkarran, who is representing GuySuCo.
The matter will come up for report on September 14 at 1.30pm.
Nandlall said that despite the granting of the injunction by the Full Court, GuySuCo has refused to meet with the unions and “has been using the injunction to withhold redundancy payments to the workers.”
The attorney said in a statement to the media that in recognition of this reality, Justice Reynolds ordered and directed the unions and GuySuCo to continue the process of consultation, commenced on January 8, 2016, and for the sugar company to submit to the unions the processing and payment data in respect of the employees who are to be rendered redundant. That list is to be examined by the unions and discussed by both the unions and the sugar corporation.
The unions sought an interim injunction restraining GuySuCo from proceeding with plans to implement its decision to sever the employment of workers on the Wales Estate until it had consulted with them, in accordance section 12 of the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act.
In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, the unions alluded to the meeting held on January 20, 2016, at La Bonne Intention Estate, where GuySuCo gave notice of a decision to close operations at the Wales Estate. They said at the conclusion of the meeting they were promised by GuySuCo that information regarding the new venture that will be established at the said estate along with the names of workers of the Wales Estate who would be redeployed to Uitvlugt Estate as well as the names of those who would be dismissed would be communicated.
But while GAWU would have received a letter from GuySuCo containing a list of employees who would have been deemed redundant and were thus scheduled for dismissal, NAACIE is yet to receive similar correspondence.
In this regard, it is the contention of the unions that GuySuCo’s failure to keep its word is a “flagrant violation and contravention” of Section 12 (3) (b) of the Termination of the Employment and Severance Pay Act.
Further, it was stated that it would seem that GuySuCo is deliberately excluding the unions from negotiations so that they can exploit and manipulate the workers. “By excluding the Trade Unions from such a process, workers are not receiving the best available option, terms and conditions…. The right of Trade Unions to participate in and be a part of negotiations involving employee and employer is a sacred and sacrosanct right…,” the unions said.
In light of such, an endorsement of claim together with a statement of claim were also filed on April, 6, 2016 for reliefs inclusive of compensation for damages in excess of $1 million for a breach of statutory duty owing under the Termination of the Employment and Severance Pay Act.
Previously, an Ex-Parte application for the interim injunction was heard by Justice Roxane George on April 6, 2016, however, the application was refused on the ground that the application did not disclose any urgency.
The injunction was later granted by the Full Court comprising Justice William Ramlall and Madam Justice Diana Insanally.
