What a ridiculous state of affairs!

Dec 06, 2014 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
As a former Human Resource Practitioner in the private sector, now practicing in the Caribbean, I take with interest matters in industrial relations and human resource management in Guyana in general and the sugar industry in particular, and in this regard I make reference to the article captioned “GuySuCo, Union deadlocked over fired Skeldon Worker” that was carried in your December 4, 2014 edition.
The positions articulated by GuySuCo and GAWU on whether the arbitration tribunal appointed to deliberate over the dismissal of Daniel Stephen has been duly concluded or not are not only mind-boggling, but equally amusing, because the positions are at variance like both ends of a magnet.
It is incomprehensible that a clear position of the sole arbitrator, Mr. Mohamed Akeel, a retired, experienced and learned government labour officer could not be deduced by the two parties.
The sugar company’s interpretation of the arbitrator’s position is that dismissed worker, Daniel Stephen, “is to remain off the job until the arbitrator submits his award, and that GAWU was taking it upon itself to instruct the worker (Stephen) to go back to his duties”. The Union, on the other hand, is insisting “that the proceedings (arbitration) came to an end on November 26”.
Further, according to the Union, Akeel made it clear in his last session on November 26, 2014 that “if we (GuySuCo/GAWU) don’t agree to move forward by altering the Terms of Reference which I cannot force, my duty (which is) based on the Terms of Reference is finished, because there is no disciplinary action for me to inquire into, so the matter is concluded here”.
Editor, if what the Union is interpreting here, Akeel has certainly concluded the proceedings; as such there should be no room for ambiguity by either party. What therefore is Akeel’s position? Has he concluded the proceeding or not?
He needs to be pellucid as to whether he has closed the matter, and if he did, then it brings to the fore the contentious clause in the Terms of Resumption, which in your September 25, 2014 edition captioned “Strike over as GuySuCo agrees to stay Skeldon’s worker dismissal” says that “The agreement further specifies that the dismissal of Daniel Steven will be amended to suspension without pay until the end of either conciliation or arbitration proceedings.”
It means, therefore, that if Akeel has indeed brought the arbitration proceedings to an end on November 26, and has failed to make an award, then in accordance with the Terms of Resumption, Steven’s suspension automatically came to an end on November 26, and the gentleman should have resumed his duties on the estate.
The Terms of Resumption does not state if the matter remains unresolved it will go beyond arbitration. It means therefore that since Akeel, in the Union’s interpretation, has brought the proceeding to an end and an award was not made then Steven remains suspended forever! What a ridiculous state of affairs!
I think the Union was in good order when it refused the arbitrator’s request to “alter” the Terms of Reference, because one cannot change the rules of game when the game has already started. Akeel, I presume, must have had a preliminary meeting when the Terms of Reference was presented to him as the instrument of his appointment as the sole arbitrator. Why then, as an experienced labour relations practitioner, did he not discover that the said Terms of Reference was deficient?
It is unprecedented, unless Akeel could prove me wrong, to have a Terms of Reference “altered” when the proceeding has started. The recourse to do so is either to abort the proceedings completely and re-appoint another tribunal with the desired Terms of Reference or request the parties to mutually agree to an amendment; failing which the tribunal automatically terminates itself.
This arbitration is administratively and procedurally bungled up, starting with the parties not too clear on the operative of the contentious clause of the Terms of Resumption, and ending with the arbitrator accepting a job and not knowing what guides his deliberations.
This bungling up cannot be reconciled; as such the more viable option, taking into consideration the seemingly acrimonious relationship between the two parties as demonstrated by their vitriolic press statements, is to allow Daniel Steven to return to work, and the period that the gentleman was off the job be treated as suspension without pay.
It’s grossly unfair to allow Steven to suffer indefinitely because of the lack of a common understanding on whether an arbitration tribunal has been concluded or not by the leaders of GuySuCo and GAWU and a retired, learned labour officer who seems confused whether he himself has concluded the tribunal or not.
Mohamed Sayad

---

---