By Abigail Headley
Maintaining that the Guyana Teachers Union’s (GTU) strike is illegal, Chief Education Officer Saddam Hussain staunchly defended the government’s position to cut striking teachers’ pay and to stop the deduction of union dues, in his affidavit in response to the case filed by the union.
As the strike enters its fifth week Hussain, whose defence was filed by the office of Attorney-General Anil Nandlall, is asking the court not to grant the reliefs sought by the union. He claimed that talks between the union and the Ministry of Education have been ongoing since 2020.
Even as the mediation process ordered by Justice Sandil Kissoon continues today, Hussain is asking the court to deny all the contentions of law sought by the union as they are “hopelessly misconceived and wrong”. He is further seeking to have the court dismiss the matter. Justice Kissoon has barred the government from cutting teachers’ salaries and stopping the deduction of union dues until the substantive matter is determined.
According to Hussain’s affidavit, the strike has caused severe disruptions to the teaching-learning process, is unlawful, and engaged in bad faith. It argued that there exists an employer-employee relationship between the state and teachers, and any breach of this relationship would attract the common law principle of ‘no work, no pay’.
Hussain further stated that while the constitution provides for the freedom to strike, there are consequences to such actions, including deductions to account for unearned salary due to unauthorised absences. He referenced a letter dated February 6, 2024, in which the government informed the union that it would no longer act as an agent for deducting union dues from teachers’ salaries.
These arguments were put forth in court by Nandlall just before the February 22 ruling by Kissoon in favour of the status quo being maintained pending the outcome of the court case.
While accusing the GTU of displaying a lack of good faith by moving to strike despite ongoing engagements with the ministry which have resulted in the granting of many of its demands, the affidavit pointed out statutory breaches committed by the union. Among them are failure to file annual returns for nearly two decades and failure to submit financial statements for auditing for over 35 years.
In response to the union’s arguments of deprivation of property and hardship, Hussain expressed the belief that these contentions are now moot in light of the recent court order to preserve the status quo. He further denied all allegations of constitutional violations and argued that the union’s claims are misconceived and wrong.
Asking the court to refuse the reliefs sought by the union and dismiss the application, Hussain emphasised that the ministry’s decision to cease acting as an agent for collecting union dues does not prevent the union from collecting those dues directly from its members.
Among some of the documents attached to the affidavit as proof of Hussain’s claims was a detailed comparison between the demands put forth by the GTU and the ministry’s response to/actions taken to address each demand.
One of the key demands by the union was regarding wage increases for teachers, including increments of 20% for multiple years. In response, the ministry said it has implemented salary corrections for over 8,000 teachers, with adjustments totalling $700 million. Additionally, graduate teachers have been paid at the highest level of their salary scale, and teachers have received significant percentage increases in their salaries for 2021, 2022, and 2023.
The GTU also addressed debunching and sought continued placement of teachers in scales reflecting the results of debunching exercises. However, the ministry said it has addressed this demand by ensuring all teachers with a degree are placed at the maximum of their respective scales, eliminating the need for further debunching.
Another demand by the GTU was for travel allowances related to Teaching Practice (TP) and monthly allowances for head teachers to conduct school business. The ministry said it responded by refunding travelling expenses for headteachers and ensuring that tutors from the Cyril Potter College of Education (CPCE) are paid for their travel expenses during TP.
Regarding payment for improved qualifications, the GTU requested increased remuneration based on higher qualifications. The ministry said it complied by providing varying monthly amounts for different degrees and qualifications.
With regard to the request for clothing allowances to be raised from the standard $8,000 per year to $30,000, the ministry said it responded by stating that clothing allowance will remain the same.
Whitley Council leave allowances, duty-free concessions for teachers, and the withdrawal of previous circulars affecting teachers’ salaries were also highlighted. These initiatives have been implemented or are in progress, according to Hussain’s affidavit.
Meanwhile, Hussain’s claim in the affidavit that salaries were discussed during meetings with the GTU, his proof of minutes of the last meeting held on January 31 showed no indication of such discussions on the agenda.
The affidavit was drawn on behalf of Hussain by Nandlall and other legal representatives for the ministry and addressed to the GTU’s attorney Darren Wade. The GTU’s court application outlines a series of unanswered requests for discussions on salary increments sent to the President’s Office and the Ministry of Education. The union seeks court intervention to affirm the legality of its strike action and refute any allegations of non-compliance with legal procedures.
Through its attorney, the union, on behalf of teachers, sought a range of declarations from the Supreme Court, chief among them, that the government’s decision not to deduct union dues from their wages and salaries violated the union’s legitimate expectation. This, the union said, is “unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.”
In the claim filed against the Attorney General, (the Respondent), the GTU said that the government’s allegation of the strike action being illegal was unfounded and unfair and it wanted the court to so declare.
It said that the government has also been discriminatory and has breached the union’s right to freedom of association and assembly and its right to protection from deprivation of property; all of which it wants the court to also declare.
