During his second day on the witness stand, Chief Education Officer (CEO) Saddam Hussain admitted under oath that he lacks records of any negotiations occurring between the Ministry of Education and the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU).
This admission came amidst the ongoing case brought against the Government, which alleges a failure to engage the Union in Collective Bargaining, leading to a nationwide teachers’ strike last month.
Under cross-examination by both Darren Wade, the attorney for the teachers’ union, and Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), the Chief Education Officer was unable to cite documents confirming negotiations regarding the Union’s multi-year agreement spanning from 2019 to 2023.
During yesterday’s hearing before Justice Sandil Kissoon, Wade questioned Hussain regarding whether there had been any negotiations between the Union and the Education Ministry.
In response, Hussain informed the Court that negotiations on the proposed agreement did indeed take place. However, he stated that these negotiations were not documented in the minutes of the meetings presented to the Court.
“I do not agree that there were no negotiations; they simply weren’t recorded,” he asserted, defending the State’s position that negotiations on the proposed agreements had begun and were ongoing at the time of the February 5 strike, which lasted for more than four weeks.
The State has maintained that discussions on various aspects of the multi-year agreement have been occurring, and since 2020, it has been implementing several of those proposals.
In 2023, it was announced that teachers holding a Master’s Degree would receive a monthly allowance of $20,000, while those with a doctorate would receive $30,000. However, when questioned by Wade, Hussain admitted that the Education Ministry had not consulted the Union on these figures before their announcement.
Wade pointed out, and Hussain concurred, that the Union had proposed $25,000 for teachers with Master’s Degrees. This was to make the point that the allowances issued by the Government were decided unilaterally.
Hussain maintained that negotiations had indeed taken place. He cited at least 10 documents, all meeting agendas from November 2020 to June 2023, listing discussions on various aspects of the proposal, such as de-bunching, the housing revolving fund, and scholarships. However, Wade argued that meeting agendas alone were not sufficient evidence of actual negotiations, a point with which Hussain disagreed.
Forde then pressed Hussain on whether the Education Ministry had submitted a written counter-proposal to the GTU or provided a list of all the items it had reportedly acted upon. Hussain admitted there was no written response. Forde referred to a letter from the GTU General Secretary, Coretta McDonald, stating that as of December 31, 2023, the Government had not submitted a counter-proposal. Hussain conceded that he had no evidence of such a counter-proposal being sent.
Forde continued by questioning the documents submitted by Hussain, arguing that negotiations had not commenced by December 31, 2021. He pointed to inquiries from the Union’s President, Mark Lyte, on March 11, 2021, July 30, 2021, and December 31, 2021, seeking a start date for negotiations. Hussain maintained that negotiations had begun but were not recorded. However, he could not provide evidence that the Education Ministry had invited the Union to a meeting to initiate negotiations.
Hussain’s cross-examination is set to resume today at 10 before Justice Kissoon.
The case stemmed from the government’s declaration that the GTU strike was illegal and its subsequent decision that strikers would not be paid. The government also decided to cease the withdrawal of union dues on behalf of the GTU and this spurred the union to go to court to challenge these measures and to insist on collective bargaining.
Justice Kissoon’s first order was the preservation of the status quo pending the substantive hearing meaning that no deductions could be made from teachers’ salaries. A subsequent statement from Hussain that deductions would be still ne made saw him being summoned by Justice Kissoon for contempt of court. Hussain apologized and Justice Kissoon later floated mediation between the two sides and eventually ordered it despite Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s objections. Two rounds of talks were held with the mediators and this resulted in the ending of the strike and a decision for bilateral talks between the ministry and the union. Two bilateral meetings were held until talks broke down on March 12 resulting in a return to the court of Justice Kissoon.
