The administration of the University of Guyana has issued a response to the condemnatory remarks made by the institution’s unions over its reversal of an earlier decision to send the Vice Chancellor (VC) on standard leave, arguing that the practice is normal.
In their response, the administration substantiated claims made by the University of Guyana Senior Staff Association (UGSSA) and the University of Guyana Workers Union (UGWU), which had related that Pro-Chancellor Major-General (Ret’d) Joseph Singh, said that a Council decision to send Griffith on end-of-contract leave had been reversed and that the VC would be paid in lieu of leave.
“It is my understanding that the round robin practice has been in place over the years and has been utilised by Council and other Statutory Organs of the University, therefore, it should not be interpreted as a special dispensation for the incumbent Vice-Chancellor,” Singh was quoted as saying.
Alluding to the potentially harmful impact the tension between the administration and the unions can have, the Pro Chancellor, in reference to the unions’ threats of industrial action, advised the parties involved to, “Be responsible and ensure that the administration of our final examinations is not disrupted. I urge that our students, the primary stakeholders, be accorded the highest priority in this season of Examinations.”
According to the release, during a duly constituted council meeting on April 15, 2019, the subject of Vice-Chancellor Ivelaw Griifth’s leave came up and it was agreed that he would be sent on leave, effective May 13, 2019.
However, on May 2, Griffith reportedly wrote to Singh to request a reconsideration of the Council’s April 15 decision, citing, among other things, that ‘“extenuating circumstances” oblige him to forgo proceeding on leave effective from that date and requested to be paid for “30 of the 35 days’ due to him’, the release related.
Following this, the Pro-Chancellor reportedly requested a review of the decision by round robin of all members of the Council, who were also asked to indicate their support of the VC’s request to be paid a portion of his leave entitlement.
The release noted that 13 council members participated in the process, which saw seven members supporting the request, four voting for it to be deliberated upon at an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Council, one expressing opposition to the request and another indicating that a meeting of the council should be duly convened. Three members did not participate.
Subsequently, the VC and Council members were informed that the request had been approved by a clear majority and informed that the amount of pay in lieu of leave that the Vice-Chancellor would be entitled to would be based on the advice of the Bursar and Personnel Officer.
