On Wednesday a letter was pinned up on the notice board of the Rusal-owned Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc (BCGI) informing 146 workers whose names were listed that they had been laid off. That list accounted for almost the entire work-force, an employee told this newspaper that same evening. After being alerted to this latest development, Minister of Natural Resources Raphael Trotman said he was shocked. One wonders why. It was hardly a novel approach for the company, whose industrial relations practices since the beginning of its operations here have not been in conformity with the requirements of our labour legislation.
The reason given in the letter for the layoffs was the “adverse operating circumstances including shipment interruption due to the blockage of the Berbice River.” The blockage had been organised by workers after 142 of them had been made redundant last week on account of what the company claimed was a fuel shortage. According to the union representing the workers (the Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union (GB&GWU)), during discussions, BCGI changed what it had originally given as the rationale for the layoffs. It now advanced the pretext that it had not been granted approval by the government for the duty-free importation of fuel. In actuality, the Guyana Revenue Authority had issued a letter of approval, and when the management was confronted with that fact by the union, they then said the redundancies were the result of the company scaling back operations.
This particular dispute comes in the context of a stand-off with the GB&GWU over the matter of wages. Around a year ago workers went on strike following the imposition of a unilateral 1% increase in wages by BCGI, and its failure to recognise the union as the bargaining agent for the workers, among other matters. Following its normal practice, the company fired 90 employees on that occasion, and thereafter no progress has been made on the issues, with relations between the two sides deteriorating further as time has progressed.
The union’s position is that the present redundancies are simply a move on the part of the bauxite company to pressurise the workers. That may well be so, more especially since in September last year a Rusal document stated that BCGI had the highest costs in the Atlantic region owing to the “highest stripping ratio, complicated bargaining logistics [and] dredging operations.” The bauxite in Guyana, said the report, had a high silica content, and that each additional percentage of silica led to a US$8 increase in alumina production costs. Freight costs were the most expensive owing to the port limitations of New Amsterdam, and the fact that large ships could not be loaded there. “Any alumina refinery will prefer another available bauxite,” said the document.
The report also made the point that BCGI bauxite was only used by the Rusal refinery, with the presumed implication that if the Guyana government ended its contract with the company, no one else would mine its Berbice ore. It may be that the company’s conviction that this country has nowhere else to go where Aroaima bauxite is concerned, is part of the reason why it believes it can simply ignore the labour laws with impunity. And as said earlier, this is not something recent; it goes back to the very inception of BCGI here in 2004. Among many other things, its managers have often not sent representatives to meetings at the Ministry of Labour, when attempts were being made on the government side to negotiate between them and the workers; they have not moved to arbitration when all else has failed and the law required it; and as noted above, they have not recognised the workers’ legitimate bargaining agent. Altogether, they have proceeded to treat the work-force as they pleased.
That said, it must also be recognised that parent company Rusal comes with a certain culture where developing nations are concerned. Its record in Africa is notorious, more particularly in relation to Guinea, and Guinea is thought to have the largest bauxite reserves anywhere on the planet. Along with all kinds of other difficulties related to that country’s bauxite operations, its industrial relations problems are not dissimilar from ours.
BCGI has only been able to get away with ignoring our local laws because no Guyana administration, neither PPP/C nor APNU+AFC has been prepared to insist that it abides by them, despite the fact the government owns a 10% stake in the company. The fear of officialdom is exactly what BCGI has assumed it is, namely that the company would pull out if held to account on the labour front. All governments so far have been afraid of the loss of jobs that would entail.
It might be asked that given Rusal’s record in Africa in particular, why it was allowed to operate here. Two years ago former head of NICIL, Mr Winston Brassington, told this newspaper in an interview that it had been done to save the local industry, and that Rusal was the only company to show investment interest at the time.
So if other forms of pressure fail, would the Guyana government ever be prepared to ask Rusal to leave? It would seem that they may have considered it. Almost a year ago Mr Trotman was reported as saying that the President and his ministers would review a technical and legal assessment of the company’s operations prepared by GGMC. “[W]e are looking at all of the legal and other consequences, either them closing or we closing them,” he was quoted as saying. Nothing more was heard about that, which allows one to infer that for the time being they decided (presuming the discussion was ever held) that they would do nothing. It may be, of course, that some time in the future, when the oil economy is better established, a Guyana administration may be prepared to be bolder with Rusal.
On the other side of the coin, what is impossible to judge is whether on balance Rusal would rather stay than leave, its document last year notwithstanding, and whether if cornered by a demand from some future administration that it change its ways, it would be prepared to make compromises. Certainly the Guyana authorities seem not to have been of the view so far that there was any element of bluff in its behaviour.
Be that as it may, as things stand BCGI is still playing its old games and does not give the appearance of intending to make any concessions currently to the workers. The most recent layoffs, for example, came just a day before the company was due to meet with the Chief Labour Officer, who was going to travel into the area for the encounter. The extraordinary disdain which it is displaying for the government of this country aside, there can be few other acts so obviously designed to convey the message that the managers have no interest whatever in conciliation.
No doubt they feel themselves reasonably safe from governmental pressure of any kind at the moment. This is a caretaker government, which prior to an election in a few weeks’ time would not want to do anything which would cause it to be associated with layoffs. This especially applies in an area which has traditionally been regarded as part of its own constituency. Furthermore, whatever government comes in after March 2, it will not be taking any hasty decisions in this area.
The union for its part has said it would not back down over securing a fair deal for its members in terms of wages, salaries and fringe benefits. While most Guyanese hope it is successful in this endeavour, the history of BCGI does not allow room for a great measure of optimism.
