The government should put its house in order

Mar 02, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

RUSAL’s actions against the bauxite workers have been brutal but not unlawful. The company punitively dismissed 61 workers but in so doing it has not breached any of the country’s labour laws.
Yet, we keep reading about the need for the government to take action to demand that RUSAL respect our labour laws. But no one is pointing to which specific laws were breached by RUSAL.
The workers stopped working to protect a 1% salary increase which was paid to them. They have no negotiations with the company nor did they give any notice about the action which they took.
The union which represents the workers then took up the workers’ cause. But RUSAL is contending that it does not recognize the union since the Board which is required to certify the recognition of the union was deemed by the courts not to have been properly constituted.
In so far as RUSAL is concerned, the union has no locus standi. In so far as the government is concerned, the union should be recognized. But the law is not on the side of the union and the government knows this.
The government has had three years to resolve the weaknesses in our labour laws. These laws are not on the side of workers. As such, workers only weapon is their solidarity.
Years ago, when labour was in its heyday, solidarity strikes would have been launched in support of the workers. But all the unions in the country are weak and RUSAL seems to be acting defiantly. At the least it should concede that its dismissal of the 61 employees was harsh.
The government cannot logistically hope to intervene to solve every labour dispute. And since the government knows or ought to know that these disputes often conclude with workers on the receiving end, they should tilt the labour laws in the worker’s favor.
As mentioned before, employers have the right to terminate workers for cause and with notice. The workers cannot afford to challenge such terminations in court because it is a costly and lengthy process. And even if they do approach the court, the common law position is that an employer cannot be forced against its will to reemploy a terminated worker.
The only workers who enjoy such protection are statutory employees.
The government should therefore consider a number of actions which can strengthen the hands of unions in their relations with employers. For one, what constitutes cause for termination should be clearly defined so as to make it more difficult for workers to be terminated for frivolous reasons as long as notice is provided.
Secondly, the government should fix the problem with the Trade Union Recognition Board. If the courts have ruled that it is not properly constituted, it should be properly constituted so that no company can refuse to recognize a union which has won a recognition poll.
Thirdly, it will not cost the government a fortune to pay a stipend of $25,000 per month to each of the terminated employees, until such time as they are reinstated. Hampers are not enough.
Years ago, when there was a boiler explosion at Barama and a number of workers had to be laid off, Bharrat Jagdeo paid each one a stipend for a period and also funded a retraining exercise.
And so, apart from the immediate short-term action to tilt the scales in favour of workers, what is needed is a comprehensive revamping of Guyana’s labour laws to root out unfair dismissals.
The government is just as guilty of wrongful dismissals and unnecessary termination of the contracts of its employees as are private companies.
Persons have been unfairly dismissed from the public sector; the contracts of others have been allowed to expire rather than be renewed and some workers have reportedly decided to leave because they are not comfortable. Those affected number far more than those now on the breadline because of the actions of RUSAL.
There has been a most inexplicable case within the health sector in which a person was appointed to a senior position and was performing in that position for years. When the term of his contract expired, instead of offering to renew it and allow the person to continue in his post, the position was re-advertised.
If this does not amount to constructive dismissal what does? And no one protested how a person in an established post has to reapply for the job which he was doing for years simply because his contract ended. The fact that the person’s contract ended does not create a vacancy.
The government has a lot of skeletons in its closet when it comes to unfair dismissals. It cannot be a credible arbiter if it is guilty of doing the same thing to public sector workers that RUSAL did to those sixty one workers. The government must put its house in order before throwing stones as RUSAL.

---

---