Dear Editor,
Justice Sandil Kissoon, in an order dated January 21, 2019, mandated the Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc (GuySuCo) to pay those retrenched Wales cane cutters who worked at Uitvlugt Estate following the closure of Wales at the end of 2016, one month’s pay.
Through the order issued, the workers in question were to be severed effective November 30, 2018 and paid one month’s pay in lieu of notice. For workers who didn’t take up work at Uitvlugt the Court ordered that they be severed with effect from December 31, 2016 and paid four per cent interest per annum up to December 05, 2018. Already those workers have fully received their respective payments. With regards to those who worked at Uitvlugt, they received severance payments, however, they did not benefit from the one month’s pay. The GuySuCo was seeking not to abide with this element of the consensual order (agreed to by the attorneys of the Union and the Company). The GAWU, in view of the Corporation’s position, pressed to have the order issued which has confirmed that the Union’s position was indeed correct.
As is now well-known, the GAWU approached the Courts on the workers’ behalf after the GuySuCo refused to pay the cane cutters of Wales their severance payments though they were entitled to such sums. The Corporation, for its part, insisted that the workers take up work at Uitvlugt which was some 22 miles away from Wales. The GAWU had pointed out to the Corporation that the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act (TESPA) obligated it to sever the workers when it was unable to provide similar work within a 10-mile radius.
It was dismaying notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous section of TESPA, the state-owned GuySuCo refused bluntly to respect the workers’ rights. For us it was disconcerting that the Corporation took such an adamant position, going as far as issuing covert and overt threats to the concerned workers, though it was clearly on the wrong side of the law. We could not help but wonder whether the GuySuCo stance was fanned by support it was receiving from those who are giving it guidance and instructions.
At this time, the Union has drawn to the Corporation’s attention to the relevant aspect of the Order and urges their compliance. Should the GuySuCo not abide, it will naturally be in contempt of Court. In fact, we recognized the Order informs parties in its last sentence that “if you fail to comply with the terms of this order, you will be held in contempt of court and may be liable to imprisonment or to have your assets confiscated”. We trust that, unlike the recent past, the Corporation will let better judgment prevail and abide by the Order.
Yours faithfully,
Seepaul Narine
General Secretary
GAWU
