GBGWU responds to ERC’s claims

Feb 10, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union (GBGWU) responds to the Ethnic Relations Commission’s (ERC) statements carried in SN, February 8, 2010 titled, “Ethnic relations body calls bauxite union’s statement mischievous.”
The Union stands by the statement made in its press release, February 4, 2010 that, “While it awaits a response from the ERC’s Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Yvonne Langevine, for the modalities and scheduled timing to commence a public inquiry that is ‘transparent and impartial’ the Chairman, Mr. Juan Edghill, has in the meanwhile visited the mines and interviewed workers.”
This statement is corroborated with the ERC’s admittance that its Chairman, Juan Edghill, “held preliminary meetings with unionized workers.”  It is this very admittance of an engagement with the “unionized workers” at the Bauxite Company Guyana Inc. (BCGI) that the Union expressed concern about and made it known that it “sees Mr. Edghill’s action as operating outside his scope and legal responsibility since the legality/illegality of a strike is not within the ERC’s mandate [and] the complaint was made by the Union, not the workers, and as such Mr. Edghill should be respectful of the procedures and principles of engagement in such relationship.”
The January 4, 2010 complaint filed by the Union requested a public inquiry into discrimination meted out to BCGI employees and the GB&GWU based on race and political geography. Since the union requested a public enquiry, any engagement by the ERC with unionized workers at the BCGI is a departure from the Union’s complaint.
In the first instance the complaint was made by the Union not the workers, and second instance the Union requested a public inquiry that is transparent and impartial. Thus far these are yet to be honoured by the ERC. The Union expects the ERC to respect the Union as the workers’ representative consistent with its recognition under the Trade Union Recognition Act.
On the other hand it is surprising to learn the ERC inaction thus far to proceed with a public inquiry is dependent on a letter stating that “Mr. Carlton Sinclair is authorised to make a complaint on behalf of the Union.”  The January 4, 2010 complaint made by the Union was signed by Carlton Sinclair, GB&GWU Branch President, Aroaima/Kwakawani Mines Operation.
The team that made the presentation to the ERC on January 8, 2010 included Carlton Sinclair whom the ERC team met face-to-face.  On January 13, 2010 the ERC team met Carlton Sinclair who hand delivered a letter to them signed by him. In short Carlton Sinclair is no stranger to the ERC, neither is his role in the complaint.
Notwithstanding the facts, the Union dispatched a letter (09-01-10) to Ms. Yvonne Langevine, conforming authorisation of Carlton Sinclair. It is now hoped that having met this ‘procedural requirement’ the ERC would proceed with the January 4, 2010 complaint for a public inquiry.
It should be said that the strategy of the ERC requesting a letter from the Union in order to proceed with a matter consistent with its constitutional responsibility and having had engagement with Carlton Sinclair at all times mirror a request made by Chief Labour Officer, Mr. Yoganand Persaud, which the Union fulfilled by delivering a letter on December 30, 2009 and still awaits action by the Ministry to resolve the three-month old dispute at BCGI. The GB&GWU has taken note of this tactic and hopes in the case of the ERC this is not another excuse for inaction.
Referencing the statement that “a team of ERC investigators revisited Linden on January 13 to take statements from persons whom the Union had said were willing to make available information for the investigation but no one showed up” Carlton Sinclair hand delivered a letter to this team which  stated, “Our request for a public inquiry is yet to be addressed. At this point your request to interview workers falls outside the parameters of acceptability when taken into consideration that there exist no known modality between the Union and the ERC on the way forward.
It is opportune to remind the Commission that in our presentation on January 8, 2010 the Union stated “we will agree to participate and provide all information to support our charges in an open public inquiry. To do otherwise is to depart fundamentally from what we have requested. GB&GWU advises that any departure will be premised on agreement between the parties.”
The fact, too, that the ERC is now saying, via the media, that “once a complaint is properly put forward to the Commission and prima facie case has been made out in keeping with its rules and procedures the Commission will proceed in an impartial and transparent manner to investigate” is unheard of.  The union needs to be apprised where in the ERC standard practice a prima facie case has to be established as a pre-requisite for a public inquiry?
Reference is made of the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) complaint against Dr. Kean Gibson’s book “The Cycle of Racial Oppression”. In this case a charge was made by the IAC and mechanism thereafter put in place, to immediately commence a public inquiry that allowed for the presentation of evidence by the IAC and others based on the charge. The ERC did not seek to establish a prima facie case. Similarly, the union made a charge and expects the ERC to put the mechanism in place for a public inquiry where the Union and others will have the opportunity to present their evidence based on the charge.
GB&GWU reminds the ERC that it is an independent body with a constitutional mandate and responsibility to the society. It expects now that the requested letter is submitted, the Commission will move to put in place the “modalities and scheduled timing” to address its complaint with the seriousness and immediacy it deserves.
Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union

---

---