Aroaima/Kwakwani bauxite saga revealed

Feb 15, 2010 Letters

Dear Editor,

The RUSAL/GB&GWU saga is now into its fourth month and there is no seeming embrace by the powerful to bring an end to the dispute. We have noted the exigent efforts in the other sectors to quell and return to normalcy issues which have seen disaffected membership taking similar actions as the bauxite workers.

However, the reaction here has been different despite statements to the contrary. I hope more people are taking note as some has voiced to me. I need not justify the point by reminding readers about the statements made regarding the importance of one industry versus another and whether workers should not be grateful for the fact that their business was ongoing against the closing of doors in other parts of the Caribbean.

In my first letter I had asked for the reasons which led to the workers taking strike action after accepting an option. This was not provided and we got sidetracked with the issue of objectivity and wrong footing. I wish to return to this subject in order to provide information to judge whether the actions of these poor workers were malicious. This requires an understanding of the history of industrial relations among the workers, their union and the company.

The GB&GWU is the recognised bargaining agent for some categories of workers employed by the Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc. (BCGI).The two parties signed a Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) in April 2008. The duration of the Agreement as stated in Art. 51 1(a) is for three years beginning 1st of January 2008 and ending on the 31st December 2010. This article also states that the agreement shall be in force until (i) all or substantial portion of the assets of the company used directly in bauxite mining et al are sold, leased or displaced in any other way and (ii) a party acquires direct or indirect control of at least 50% of the company’s share capital.

For the entire 2008, there was one major strike at the company’s operation which lasted from March 14th to 16th. Thereafter a wage increase of 13% for all categories of workers was agreed on.

On March 30, 2009 there was cessation of work at Kwakwani when the services of an employee of the workshop were severed. It would appear as though this action was not supported by fellows from Aroaima or the Union and fizzled out after three days. The company issued suspension letters for five days to the entire shift of workers who had gone on strike. They resumed duties after serving the period of suspension.

It is pertinent to note here that the union and management did not agree on terms of resumption and the issue of suspension whilst on strike or industrial action was left hanging.

The second strike for 2009 occurred on May 23, 2009 when workers struck for improvement in their working conditions. A worker fell ill because it is claimed that the enclosed truck he was working was not air conditioned. Most of the other trucks were in a similar state and the workers feared that more would become ill and needed the matter addressed with alacrity. Management responded by issuing 67 suspension letters for those on strike, thus for the second time management was suspending workers for taking strike action. The strike continued until May 26, 2009 when terms of resumption were signed with some of the terms as follows:

2. Status Quo ante will prevail

3. No Victimization by either party.

7. Wages negotiation for 2009 to commence on Wednesday, May 27, 2009.

On resuming duties the workers noted that the suspension letters were not withdrawn and so the terms of resumption clause as at 2 was honoured in the breach. The company also brought civil lawsuit proceedings against Leslie Gonsalves, General Secretary (acting) and Mr. Sinclair (Branch President) for damages amounting to US$300,000. Once more the company was in contravention of another clause – 3. It should be noted here that the management was either unaware of the laws of the land or were not properly advised and if even given proper advice did not seem to regard it. Chapter 98:03 (7) (i) of the Laws of Guyana makes it clear that the court cannot entertain any action brought against a trade union or its members for alleged tortuous acts.

Note too that when the strike ended the wages negotiations were left behind and so clause 7 was now honoured in the breach as well. The Union did not move to deal with these issues. There is an assumption that they guessed that all these matters were ‘walks in the park’ for the Ministry of Labour and that at conciliation these would have been overturned. This did not happen. So from this industrial unrest three clauses of the terms of resumption were not honoured by the company, the Union’s aura of militancy dissipated and the company became emboldened.

The union continued to badger the company for wages increase for 2009 and as expected the company spoke of the global crisis and its impact on bauxite production. The company tendered that they should skip increase for 2009 and look to 2010 in late December 2009. The Union stood its ground arguing that the CLA demands that packages be reviewed annually. After an initial position of 40% increase the Union reduced its demand to 10% and the company countered with the now famous 3 option scenario. These are as follows:

The company will increase wages up to 10% and make retroactive payments. In order to perform this action, it is necessary to carry out retrenchment of workers in proportion to the production volume decrease in 2009. BCGI produced 1890 thousand tons of bauxite with 496 employees in 2007 and 1634 thousand tons of bauxite in2008. In 2008 retrenchment amounted to as low as practicable 12%. The production target for 2009 is 1293 thousand tons, thus expected retrenchment, may affect 14% (or 75 employees) of the current staff.

The company will increase wages up to 10% and make retroactive payments; to this effect working shifts of each hourly employee will decrease to 8 hours in accordance with the normal length of working day stated in the Laws of Guyana.

The company will make a lump sum payment amounting to the yearly Safety Bonus tax free to all employees by 25 December; amount of safety bonus is equal to 2% of annual wage increase.

The Union obtained these proposals prior to the meeting on Thursday, November 12, 2009. To be ‘on the ball’, let us look at a part of the actual minutes of that meeting to help form our opinions.

In Mr. Sampson’s (GB&GWU’s President) attempt to review the options, he said that he did not fully understand them and asked for further clarity. He added that if the union has to inform the workers of the proposals, it must be fully understood.

Mr. Kostyuk (BCGI’s GM) tried his utmost to explain to the union, what was not clear to them in the three options, which they seem to understand.

Mr. Sampson further commented on some of the proposals and tried to advise the management on the negative impact that they may have on the company, also the employees.

After continued discussion on the company’s three proposals between the two parties, the union asked to be excused for a short period to discuss among themselves.

On their return Mr. Sampson indicated to the management that they accepted option #1, but would like the company to provide them with the jobs that they would like to make redundant and the subsequent names associated with those jobs to continue the process because it is normal practice for them to review the list and may object to some names.

Relative to the union’s decision of accepting option #1; Mr.Kostyuk informed the union that there is no objection in furnishing further information, but would like to have an official correspondence to that effect also a draft memo of their agreement to accept option#1; after which, an official response will be provided. He added that the basic principle of compiling a list would be based on the professional skill of a worker.

The union did not agree to provide a memo agreeing to accept option #1, but signed a memo agreeing to accept 10% increase from 1st January, 2009. They agreed to provide a written request for further information needed to continue the process, but hey did not state a specific date.

Mr. Leacock (union rep) advised that the company and union must strive to make constructive decisions that will benefit the company and employees, which they will not regret, because it is his personal desire to see the company progress.

He further said careful examination should be given of what is being published on notice boards and what is said to employees.

Mr. Sampson said that personally he does give information relative to their discussions and noted that persons must be careful when writing letters and management should be careful with what is being said to workers.

In closing Mr. Kostyuk referred to what Mr. Leacock mentioned. He noted that the decision made by the union was of their own will and not the will of the company and should not be regretted; hence, his request for an official letter from the union.

This verbatim quote was intended for us not to miss a beat on this important event.

On the night of Thursday, November 12, 2009 the union met its members at the workers club and made known its decision at the meeting. There were few dissenting voices but the majority of workers supported the union’s choice of option#1. In a letter dated November 13, 2009 under the signature of Leslie Gonsalves (GS acting), the GB&GWU formally confirmed the Union’s position.

This position by the union caused a major stir in the ranks of management who used the Personnel Department on Monday November 15, 2009 to inform workers of the other departments, of the three options, with a view that they may change their position. Apparently, management felt that workers were not given all the options and the union slanted the presentation to make workers agree on option #1.These meetings failed miserably as the workers stuck with option #1. On Friday November 20, 2009 a draft memorandum of agreement was given to the union which stated the following:

* The company agrees to an increase of the wages of its workers by 10 % for the year 2009.This increase shall be valid for 2009 only.

* The Union agrees that the contracts of employment of 75 employees of the company will be terminated forthwith upon the execution thereof.

* The terminated employees will be paid their retroactive wage increase forthwith upon termination.

* The union and the Ministry hereby acknowledge and confirm that they have been notified in accordance with section 12(3) of the termination and of employment and severance pay act. And that all acts contemplated by this memorandum are in accordance with the provisions of the said act.

* The wage increase for the remaining employees would be paid as follows; # Increases for the period 1st January to 30th May 2009, will be paid on or by 31st January 2010.

# Increases for the period 1st June to 30th November 2009, will be paid on or by 31st march 2010.

# Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, increases for the month of December 2009 shall be paid by 31st December 2009.

# The company and the union shall commence negotiations for wages for the year 2010 on 1st December 2009.

Discussions followed at a meeting on the said day with Mr. Kostyuk elucidating management’s positions in the Draft MOA. Mr. Sampson’s responses were-

1. “The company has the right to make employees redundant and the union does not have to sanction redundancy exercises. The union does not have to sign an agreement to reduce the workforce because it is in the agreement (Article 5, CLA); also it is the company’s prerogative”.

2. The union would like to have more explanation on item 2 which states that the increase shall be valid for 2009 only.

3. “All terminated employees would have to be paid their benefits, which do not attract taxes and usually the department would submit the names of people to be terminated after it is compiled; the union will scrutinize the list.”

4. “Regarding the schedule of payments, the union’s view is that all retroactive payments must be done before the end of the year”.

To these concerns Mr. Kostyuk stated that the “schedule of payments was shown because the company has no money to pay increase”. He said “the money will have to be taken from next year’s salary fund; a loan from 2010 budget to carry out some payments, but the company cannot pay everything, therefore an agreement can be made on a reasonable solution”. Mr. Leacock was adamant that “if the union informs the employees of the part payment, the workers will not accept it”

In that environment no agreement was reached and so none could be signed. It was then agreed that the union would send its position on the company’s proposal to the company by Monday 23, November, 2009, in order for the company to arrange a meeting with the Ministry of Labour in Georgetown on Tuesday, November 24, 2009.

What followed including the strike on November 22, 2009 will be discussed in the concluding segment of this presentation.

Orrin Gordon