The efforts of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) to join the case of its member union, the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) met with success yesterday.
A release from the GTU informed that in the case of the GTU versus Attorney General of Guyana (2024-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA-229), Justice Sandil Kissoon granted a Notice of Application filed by the GTUC to intervene and or join the legal proceedings filed by the GTU against the Government of Guyana.
In making this decision, Justice Kissoon rejected the contention by Darshan Ramdhani, KC, who appeared on behalf of the Attorney General (AG) of Guyana and argued that the GTUC ought not to be joined as it did not have any legal interest in the said legal proceedings and therefore could not make any useful contribution to the legal proceedings.
However, Roysdale Forde SC, representing the GTUC argued that it did have a legitimate and sufficient interest in the legal proceedings which was filed by GTU.
According to the release, Justice Kissoon was of the view that the Notice of Application and the Affidavit in Support of the Guyana Trades Union Congress had detailed its interest and was not to be regarded as a “meddlesome busybody.”
The Affidavit in Support of the Notice of Application outlined the following facts and circumstances: I) The Guyana Trades Union Congress was formed in 1941 as the British Guiana Trades Union Council as a national umbrella organisation for Trade Unions. II) The Guyana Trades Union Congress is registered under the Trade Unions Act Cap. 98:03. III) The Guyana Trades Union Congress is the largest umbrella organisation of Trade Unions in Guyana and currently has as its members, 14 (fourteen) trade unions. IV) The members of the Guyana Trades Union Congress, as Trade Unions, are all required by law to engage in the process of collective bargaining with Employers including the Government of Guyana in its capacity as an Employer.
Further, the GTU’s legal proceedings raises legal issues with respect to: the legality of a strike; the competence of an Employer, inclusive of the Government of Guyana as an Employer to deduct from striking workers’ salaries sums of money for days they were on strike; the competence of an Employer, inclusive of the Government of Guyana as an Employer not to deduct and remit dues from members of Unions; the function, role, and exercise, of the statutory powers conferred on the Minister of Labour and the Chief Labour Officer under the Labour Act; and whether the conduct of the Government as an Employer has been consistent with the process of collective bargaining consistent with Section 23 (1) of the Trade Union Recognition Act Cap. 98:07.
In his arguments, Forde contended that: the aforesaid legal issues set out above would involve the examination of the nature of and extent of the Constitutional fundamental Rights of Association and Assembly, property and the Constitutional rights of Trade Unions to enter into Collective Agreements and their workers to strike.
The determination of the aforesaid significant and important legal issues would impact the operations of each of the constituent members of the Guyana Trades Union Congress and the rights of the approximately 27,000 Employees who are members of the members Unions of the Guyana Trades Union Congress.
Considering the decisions which are under challenge by the GTU, the GTUC has an interest in each of the said decisions.
The Court also indicated as part of its Judicial Review Proceedings that it has caused the Registrar of the High Court to summon the Chief Labour Officer (CLO) and the Federation of Independent Trade Union of Guyana (FITUG) to attend Court and to be made aware of the extant legal proceedings. This decision was applauded by Forde.
And in arriving at its decision, the Court overruled the objections of Ramdhani to the exercise of its Judicial Review discretion to notify the CLO and FITUG.
The release meanwhile, iterated that the GTU struggle against the Government of Guyana is hinged on the denial of their right to Collective Bargaining enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana, Article 147, which states:
“(1) Except with his or her own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of assembly, association and freedom to demonstrate peacefully, that to say, his or her right to assemble freely, to demonstrate peacefully and to associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties, trade unions or other associations for the protection of his or her interests.”
It also posited that a nation is governed by laws, and one expects that a lawful government will seek to ensure good governance through adherence to rules and laws. As such, it viewed the government as no less accountable than the citizens of Guyana for its obedience to the laws. This means that the GTU, by utilising the right to protest, as enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana, Article 147 (2), which says, “Except with his or her own consent no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom to strike,” is also seeking judicial resolution through the Courts.
It further stated, “It is very unfortunate that the Irfaan Ali government chose to ignore the laws of our land by attempting to do what can best be classified as an imposition on teachers. Their action was clearly intended to deny teachers due process of collective bargaining and ultimately undermine the laws of our nation.”
The release added, “Not only are they doing so presumptuously, they are also attempting to demonise teachers and present the government as the victim of bullies. Nothing can be further from the truth. And in light of the government, of this oil-rich country’s resistance to come to the bargaining table, after more than a month of strike action Lincoln Lewis, representing the GTUC, has submitted an application to join the case before the Court.”
