GPL financially sick but workers should not suffer – NAACIE

May 23, 2013 News

---

 

 
… GPL is suffering much loss yet senior officers benefit without any

reported reduction in company losses- arbitration tribunal
In deciding awards for employees of the Guyana Power and Light (GPL), the arbitration panel set up by the Labour Ministry found that GPL is indeed suffering losses. In its 13-page report, it however thought that the losses were not enough reasons for staffers of the electricity company to suffer, hence the percentage increase in their pay.

The staffers being referred to are represented by the National Association of Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE). They staged a countrywide protest earlier this year for wage increases.
An Arbitration panel was set up by Labour Minister, Nanda Gopaul, since the agencies could not compromise. The panel had to do three things – determine whether the Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) signed between GPL and NAACIE in November 27, 2000 was still enforceable; to determine a fair and equitable compensation for 2012 with regards to GPL’s five percent across the board increase, taking into consideration the company’s financial and economic position; and to determine whether GPL had breached the CLA by contracting workers outside of the company.
Clauses one, two, three, 52, 54, 55 and 56 of the agreement were the focus of the panel’s analysis. They dealt with wages and salaries, annual increments, performance incentive award, contracting out, status and conditions, duration of agreement and agreement not legally forcible respectively.

Fair and equitable compensation
Clauses one to three of the agreement dealt with worker pay. The panel decided that Grade GE 1 workers would receive six percent all inclusive (the firm’s lowest paid workers), while Grade GE 2- GE 8 workers received a 5.5 all-inclusive increase payable from January 1, 2012.
The panel said that GPL employees’ pay structure is rather favourable, noting that these workers have been enjoying similar or higher salary increases compared to other public servants which had been a trend for years, “despite the bleak financial position in which the utility company has been finding itself.”
The panel recognized GPL’S financial budgeted deficit of $4.3B for 2013, with an accumulated deficit projected at $12.4B by year end.  The company claimed that an increase was almost impossible for any type of worker.
NAACIE, however, presented to the panel that GPL’S employment costs are $2.2B, “with a staggering $318M going to 32 key management personnel.”
“GPL is suffering much losses but yet the senior officers benefit without any reported reduction in the losses suffered by the Company.” The tribunal thus recommended that GPL go back to the drawing board and create a win-win situation for the company.
GPL made further claims that the cost of production is above that which is received from consumers thus causing large financial losses. For the year 2011, more losses to the company were attributed to the rise in the cost of fuel.

“The cost of profitability was not canvassed but we wish to say that it does not mean that workers should be made to suffer and not to attract a fair and reasonable income,” the tribunal ruled. It took into consideration the financial position of the company in deciding a fair and equitable compensation for employees. They considered the 3.5 percent rate of inflation for last year and took into account that the lowest paid workers “use most of their income for basic needs, and do find it more difficult to sustain their living standard in the face of rising prices.”
The tribunal recommended that annual negotiations of the Collective Labour Agreement for one year, “is an exercise in futility and a waste of time…it represents a denial of forward planning.” On the wage issue, the panel concluded that to cost negotiation time over months of delays in conciliation and arbitration would be horrendous adding frustration to the workforce in waiting for a well-earned increase.
This, they said, should be a compelling reason for the parties to make the exercise a triennial one, “so that the effect is not wasted and repeated annually.”

Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) still enforceable
The three-man arbitration tribunal found that in relation to the existence of the CLA, the agreement was still enforceable according to the relevant clauses agreed upon by the parties. The CLA according to the agreement is not enforceable by law, but rather it is binding of a “gentleman’s agreement.”
The arbitrators said that they examined, carefully, the terms and conditions adumbrated in the CLA January 2001-2003 and found that clause 56 states that, “the agreement shall not be deemed legally enforceable,” while clause 55 proclaims that amendments to the agreement will be made mutually from time to time.

The 55th clause also highlighted that the CLA agreement shall be effective for two years subsequent to the signing, “but salaries and other monetary benefits shall be subject to review effective from the date of the agreement until the end of the two year period.”
From 2001-2003, the agreement was honoured and from then on up to 2011, there was mutual agreement for salaries between GPL and NAACIE; the agreements both parties however admitted did not adhere strictly with the terms and reference set out in the CLA.
Clause 55(b) of the agreement however said that of the 2001-2003 CLA, “in the event that agreement on a new agreement is not reached by December 31, 2003, the Agreement shall remain in force until negotiations on a new agreement are completed and which shall be effective January 01, 2004.”
Anytime the parties are unable to reach an annual agreement on salaries, the initial agreement comes into effect. “It is not unreasonable to expect that a document signed in 2001 with a two year life in the circumstances of this document still has the force it had when first entered into 12 years ago.”

Contracting out
NAACIE claimed that GPL had been breaching clause 52 of the 2001 CLA by contracting outside workers as it relates to metering. NAACIE further presented copies of some of the contracts but, “For the Company to be held in violation of the clause there should be evidence that the company did not have prior discussion with the Union and secure its agreement to such a course of action.” GPL said that it did not breach the clause and the panel said there is no evidence to contradict the company’s claim.
The Arbitration panel was headed by Justice Prem Persaud. The other members were Bank of Guyana Deputy Government, Ganga Gobind and Grantley Culbard, former General Secretary of the Clerical and Commercial Workers’ Union.

 

 

---

---