GEORGETOWN, Guyana, CMC -The High Court ruled Friday that the teachers’ strike was legal and that the Guyana government cannot deduct or withhold their salaries.
In addition, Justice Sandil Kissoon said the Irfaan Ali government acted arbitrarily and illegally when it stopped deducting the union dues from the salaries of teachers represented by the Guyana Teachers Union (GTU).
However, a disappointed Attorney General Anil Nandlall has already indicated that the government will file an entire appeal of the ruling.
The GTU had gone to court to challenge the government’s decision to deduct pay from striking teachers and its intention to cease deducting dues from teachers’ pay in favor of the union.
On March 4th, 2024, court-ordered mediation ended a four-week-old teachers’ strike. Talks ensued between the union and the Ministry of Education, but these later collapsed.
The High Court judge said that the government, as the employer, had engaged in acts that constituted substantial interference and denial of the fundamental right guaranteed by the GTU for collective bargaining.
The Judge also said that any deduction or withholding of remuneration by the government from the salaries of teachers who were engaged in industrial action between February 5 and March 4 would be arbitrary, unlawful, unreasonable, or unconstitutional and without legal basis.
“Teachers lifted the voices and asked for bread; they were given stones. The union wrote letters to every person in authority requesting an engagement and to be heard on matters about livelihoods, but they were ignored. These circumstances led to the strike, which lasted for some 29 days,” Justice Kissoon said.
The High Court deemed the strike from February 5 to March 4, 2024, “lawful and legitimate.”
The lawyers representing the GTU argued that the government’s argument that striking workers could not be paid for days off was incorrect as the common law principle could not be applied.
In the ruling, Justice Kisson said that the teachers’ strike was justifiable because, despite the passage of three years, the union and the employer had not discussed the matter.
The Judge said there was no collective bargaining in good faith despite the submission of the multi-year proposal and that there were a series of unilateral.
Justice Kissoon noted that every attempt by the union to bargain in good faith was shunned or rebuffed by persons in authority at every level. Did the meaningful process of collective bargaining and attempts to invoke the offices of the Chief Labour Officer of the Minister of Labour exercise the powers and functions of the office to mediate, reconcile, and proceed to arbitration unsuccessful?
About the government’s decision to stop the deduction of union dues and remittance to the GTU, the Judge said that based on the reasons for alleged criminal conduct and no opportunity for the union to defend itself, it amounted to bad faith, illegal, and unconstitutional and so “has to be struck down.”
Regarding the argument that the GTU then had yet to submit its accounts to the Registrar of Unions and the Auditor General’s Office, Justice Kissoon said the union’s members are entitled to the right to freedom of association. So, the refusal by the government to process the union dues had to be “struck down summarily.
“The government’s decision, contained in that letter of February 6, 2024, goes beyond mere hindrance, substantial interference, denial, and abrogation of the fundamental rights guarantees under Article 147, and was accordingly struck down,” the Judge said, noting that the government’s decision to stop the check-off system targeted only the GTU.
The Judge said workers enjoy the right to collective bargaining and strike legally and justifiably, as enshrined in Guyana’s constitution. This was a landmark decision in Canada, and international commentators commented on the government’s decision not to negotiate increased salaries with the GUT despite several efforts to engage the government on the 2019-2023 proposed multi-year agreement.
“The evidence before this court reveals, and I find, that all efforts by the union to commence the process of meaningful engagement and collective bargaining to address the issues of wages and salaries and matters about the conditions of their employment were rebuffed or were not addressed.”
Justice Kissoon said government actions had the effect of “sidelining and undermining” the GTU. Those include President Irfaan Ali’s meeting with a section of teachers at State House, in which the union was welcomed to participate.
The Judge found that that did not amount to collective bargaining with the recognized union and questioned how the employer could conduct a nationwide consultation that logically included union members but did not involve the union.
The High Court also cited the Chief Labour Officer of the Ministry of Labour for contributing to the strike action after becoming aware of it on January 23 and during the strike that commenced on January 25, 2024.
The Judge found that the chief legal officer’s omissions amounted to an “abdication of his duties and his functions, a dereliction on his part to exercise, independently, inform himself and his office as to what were the relevant and material facts from credible persons and credible sources to permit him to come to a decision.”
Justice Kissoon said there was no evidence before the court that a meeting or agenda was scheduled to discuss wages and salaries with the GTU.
The Judge said the evidence before the court shows that the union had been asking each representative to commence a “meaningful process” of collective bargaining on its multi-year proposal. He said there was a “complete failure, complete dereliction” to engage in the process of collective bargaining.
He observed, “this singular, striking piece of evidence for the court that there was no collective bargaining” as there was no consideration of the 2019-2023 multi-year proposal as it was initially placed on the agenda at a meeting on March 12, 2024 “until it was removed.” The government had cited the absence of fiscal space and that the GTU should submit a new multi-year proposal in 2024.
Justice Kissoon criticised Chief Education Officer Saddam Hussain, saying that based on his evidence, he was not being full and frank with the court. In addition, the court found that spreadsheet data that accompanied the Chief Education Officer’s affidavit was “inaccurate and self-serving” and no doubt intended to deceive the court. It could not be acted upon nor relied upon.
About the Ministry of Education’s decision to quash the automatic deduction and remittance of union dues to the GTU, Justice Kissoon said the letter purporting to communicate that the decision was that opposition parliamentarian Coretta Mc Donald was central to the strike.
“Such action decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, constitute constitutes a violation of Article 149 D of the Constitution,” the Judge said, adding that a decision to deny a union of financial resources seems to strike at the very root of the heart of freedom of association that is guaranteed in Guyana’s constitution.
and then 