UG Unions remain at odds with Administration, Council over matters of concern

Mar 19, 2019 News

---

Even as it insists that the welfare and wellbeing of staff and students are of paramount importance to the University of Guyana [UG] Council, the Council is nevertheless in support of a decision by the institution’s administration to return to conciliation process to address salary increase concerns.
At least this has been outlined in a statement issued by the university which seeks to chronicle a series of events which influenced its position on the matter.
In fact the Council’s disclosure comes on the heels of a joint statement issued by the workers’ unions – the University of Guyana Workers’ Union [UGWU] and the University of Guyana Senior Staff Association [UGSSA].
In a statement to the media last week, the unions said that they are extremely disappointed that the Council did not make any decisions on the matters relating to workers during its meeting dated March 7, 2019. They revealed, too, that the meeting’s agenda essentially left the matters relating to the workers for last. The items in question were numbers 15 and 16 on a 17-item agenda. The only item after these two was ‘Any Other Business’.
The unions have moreover questioned, “How committed those who prepared the agenda were to actually discussing the worker-related items and deciding upon them. The Council made no decision on the matter of the forensic audit, nor did they respond to a request from the Unions to have a special subcommittee set up to deal with human resources issues at the University. Instead, the matter is deferred until the next Council meeting, which might be in April,” the unions headed by Mr. Bruce Haynes [UGWU] and Dr. Jewel Thomas [UGSSA] noted.

However, in response to the unions, Pro Chancellor and Chairman of the Council, Retired Brigadier Joseph Singh, expressed his “regret at the course of action taken by the Unions to distort the outcomes of the Council meeting held on March 7, 2019, at which the Unions’ representative was present and participated fully in the discussions and decisions of the Council”.
In fact, he revealed that prior to the March 7 meeting, on February 15 to be exact, he appealed to the leadership of the Unions and the Administration to “return to the negotiating table in a spirit of compromise, transparency and cordiality”.
Additionally, he noted that three non-University members of the Council were requested to join the Administration’s Team pointing out that, “Their collective mandate was to address the issues that have been responsible for generating tensions, mutual distrust and aggravation, and craft a way forward that would address the concerns of both the Unions and the Administration”.
But the unions are strongly refuting claims coming from the university’s Council, even providing a table which seeks to summarise some main points addressed by the unions and the Council in respective statements disseminated to the media.
“The points made in the Council’s’ press release either do not address those made in our release, or are new points unrelated to those made in our release… The ‘Council’s release also makes some points that we do not make in our release, because of our specific focus on the matters that were of greatest concern to staff,” the unions underscored.
Added to this, the unions disclosed that another matter that Council did not respond to was a letter from the Unions sent since January of this year. The letter in question asked if Council members would consider meeting with the staff. It also asked “how does Council enforce its decisions, since over the last few years it seemed to the workers that Council kept making decisions that would simply be ignored by the administration. It also asked about the contractual situation of a number of senior administrators”.
In this regard, the Unions have asked the administration when the contracts of a number of senior administrators would end, given that some persons’ contracts might be nearing an end. The unions have, moreover, called for these contracts to be evaluated as part of any contract renewal process, but are still awaiting needed answers.
Concerns on both sides [unions and the university administration/Council] have contributed to their continued fracture relationship.
According to the Pro-Chancellor, “even though the Council was prepared to facilitate a process that will enable a return to the negotiating table by the Unions and the Administration, and the Vice-Chancellor immediately after the Council meeting on March 7, 2019, issued an invitation to the leadership of the Unions to meet with him and his team on Friday, March 8, 2019, the Unions have demonstrated their lack of trust and interest in such a process.”
In the circumstances, he added, the Vice-Chancellor has indicated his preference for the impasse to be referred to the Ministry of Social Protection’s Department of Labour for conciliation. The Pro-Chancellor further stated that “the Council, now recognising that the facilitating role it has initiated has not met with the desired response from the Unions, has no option but to acknowledge and support the decision by the Vice-Chancellor and his Administration to return to the Ministry of Labour’s conciliation process”.

 

---

---