The Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company Ltd (GTT) has stopped laying off workers and will now engage the Guyana Postal and Telecommunications Workers Union (PTWU) on the company’s redundancy programme based on a Consent Order that was handed down by the High Court last month.
At a press conference yesterday, PTWU Presi-dent Harold Shepherd stated that the union “won the court matter,” which means GTT has to comply with the Termination of Employees and Severance Pay Act and the Collective Labour Agreement, which was signed between the union and the company.
According to Shepherd, the Consent Order, dated April 12, states, “… The respondent company do engage
in a process of notification and consultation with the applicant union under the terms of the Collective Labour Agree-ment between the union and the respondent company, and in compliance with the provision of Section 12(3) of the Termination and Severance Pay Act Cap 96:01, before implementing its termination of employment of unionized employees by reason of a redundancy programme and it is further ordered that the respondent company continues to engage in a process of notification and consultation with the Chief Labour Officer under the terms of Section 12(3) of the Termination and Severance Pay Act Cap 96:01 before implementing its redundancy programme.”
Shepherd explained that the company and union have since met once. The union has requested that GTT supply relevant data in terms of the structure of the company, its respective departments and the number of temporary and contract employees.
“So we want to do a thorough analysis of what presently happens within the company as it relates to the total number of employees where we will be able to make an informed decision as the process moves forward,” Shepherd said.
PTWU General Secretary Eslyn Harris also pointed out that from the information gathered, the company is well aware of which positions it wants to make redundant.
“… The union is not aware of management’s position,” Harris said, while pointing out that the union wants to be clear about the company’s intentions, especially with the unionized workers.
While the company has over 700 employees, Shepherd related that the PTWU represents approximately 220 of them and even if the workers targeted for redundancy are not represented by a union, the company has to notify the Ministry of Social Protec-tion’s Department of Labour of its intention one month in advance, along with whatever union is on board.
Shepherd is of the opinion that the company is “up to something sinister” since it has hired some 17 contract employees for “the same call centre” where it has been doing layoffs.
“The public is fully aware that GTT has been unable to provide an effective and efficient service because of this very issue. They are demoralizing the workforce. Workers are going to work without knowing what’s going to happen in their future and management need to put their cards on the table so we can update the members,” Shepherd added, while questioning how the company could be hiring contract employees while they were going through a redundancy programme.
Harris also pointed out that she hopes the company does not misinterpret the order and “think they can call the union and give them a list and say to them we are going to make 40 or even one position redundant and take it that they have complied.
“The union is by no means saying that the company can’t reorganize but it is the manner in which it is done. The union has no difficulty re-approaching the court and we hope that good sense prevails and we trust that the management of GTT look at their strategy and comply,” she said.
In February, the tele-communications company had announced in a statement that it would be restructuring its operations and as such 120 employees would be made redundant.
The statement had said that so far six workers, drawn from multiple departments, were laid off.
However, even though the company had released a statement, the PTWU had explained to Stabroek News that no consultations were held with the union, which Shepherd said was unlawful and did not follow the labour laws that the company would have agreed to.
