Workers have to stay on the right side of the law

Feb 04, 2020 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

In 1986, Rabbi Edward Washington, the head of a local cult, known as the House of Israel was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for the beating to death of the husband of a member of his cult. He appealed the decision and his sentence was increased. He eventually got sick in jail and was sent back to the United States, his homeland, where he died.
Rabbi Washington, whose birth name was David Hill, had led picketing exercises against certain fast food restaurants in an effort to force the owners to sell to certain persons. He was arrested and charged with extortion. He jumped bail and fled to Guyana in 1971.
If Guyana had the type of laws that the Cleveland had in 1969, a great many persons would have found themselves facing civil suits before the courts. But civil law is still undeveloped in Guyana and people can get away with all manner of things.
Regardless, however the deficiencies in our civil law, it is a criminal offence to block a public thoroughfare. And a river is a public thoroughfare which the police are obligated to keep clear so that persons and vessels can traverse freely. It also is an offence to encourage persons to block a waterway used for transportation.
But do not tell that to the government. They are conveniently feigning ignorance of the law and are allowing persons to openly defy the law when it comes to the blockage of rivers. Right now, there is a dispute between RUSAL and the union representing its workers and there has been open support by one union official for the actions which have been taken by some workers to block the river.
If that had happened in the United States, not only would the police have cleared the river of any impediment to riverine traffic but those responsible would have been sued by those affected by the blockage. Criminal charges would have been laid and civil action would have been taken.
No union has any right to encourage any of its workers to violate the laws of the country. Regardless, of how bad an employer is, unions and workers have to stay on the right side of the law.
The traditional weapon of unions has been the strike weapon, not blocking public thoroughfares. If all the workers walked off the job and if other workers show support, it can cripple production and force the employer either back to the negotiating table or to make concessions to the union.
The government should be sounding a serious warning to the union that they have no right to block the river and interfere with the business or innocent persons who have nothing to do with the dispute. Union cannot fight a wrong with a wrong. They are seeking justice by committing an injustice.
Workers cannot confront an injustice with another injustice. They cannot seek remedies for a wrong done to them by breaking the law.
The government, as was the case before, seems unbothered by this fact and seems more concerned with asking the union why the Labour Department was not informed of the termination of workers.
The Chief Labour Officer is only required to be informed if circumstances develop which can lead to termination. The employer, in this instance, is given time to inform the Labour Department. But what if the measure which causes the termination is sudden? How can the employer be reasonably expected to give advance notice or just about a month.
In any event, the Chief Labour Office is only required to be informed in the eventuality of redundancy. What is facing the workers at RUSAL is not redundancy but layoffs due to problems with production, first caused by what the company claims was problems with fuel supplies and secondly by the actions of workers in blocking the river.
Layoffs are not termination. Layoffs are common in developed countries wherever there needs to be cutbacks on production or there is a decline in sales.
Layoffs are cessation of work without there being any termination of the contract of employment. Termination on the other hand refers to the ending of the contract of employment. In the case of first batch of workers, it would appear that they were laid off.
They were not terminated. But it is not clear whether the second action constitutes termination because it seems as if the company is threatening to shut shop.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News