Chief Education Officer (CEO) Saddam Hussain this afternoon apologised to Justice Sandil Kissoon for a memorandum to education officers he sent yesterday notifying them that absences by striking teachers must continue to be logged as he insisted that the government will not pay educators for the days that they did not work.
The judge had last week said that teachers’ pay is to be preserved pending the outcome of a case brought by the GTU.
Hussain was summoned by Justice Kissoon for contempt of court this afternoon and while he was represented by Attorney General Anil Nandlall the judge insisted that CEO speak and he not only apologized but said that he will rescind the memorandum. The memorandum was reported in today’s Stabroek News.
Hussain’s memorandum yesterday came days after Justice Kissoon had ruled that the Ministry of Education cannot deduct from striking teachers’ salaries nor can they stop taking out union dues for the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) until the substantive matter brought by the union is determined. The education ministry had announced those moves.
This afternoon as well, Justice Kissoon pressed the two parties (union and government) to sit and talk and suggested Senior Counsel Edward Lukhoo as the mediator. While GTU’s President Mark Lyte immediately agreed to such a meeting as soon as tomorrow. Nandlall said he first had to meet with his superiors before giving an undertaking. The judge gave the two parties 24 hours to make such a decision and it is envisioned that such a meeting will be on Friday.
Should that become a reality it would be four weeks after the teachers took to the streets to press the government to meet with the union for better wages.
In his memo yesterday, Hussain said: “To be clear, the orders made by Justice Kissoon are temporary. The Government of Guyana will not pay teachers for the days that they did not work. We are advised that a final order from the court is expected to be made accordingly and consequently the information collected…will be utilized to determine teachers’ salaries”.
That declaration could be interpreted as contemptuous of court.
