Under the cloud of a strike threat, the government yesterday wrote the GPSU inviting it to a meeting on Wednesday to commence negotiations on wages for 2002 without prejudice to the 2001 package which the two sides stalemated over.

The invitation was extended to the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) by Permanent Secretary of the Public Service Ministry (PSM), Dr Nanda Gopaul. Upset by the government's position on the 2001 package, the GPSU formally wrote the government on March 20 advising it that the union intended to call a strike.

Reached for a comment on Gopaul's offer yesterday, President of the GPSU, Patrick Yarde, stated that the union will send a delegation to the meeting but it will be made clear that their presence will not prejudice any action in relation to the outstanding issue of the 2001 wages.

According to Yarde the union is always open to dialogue with the government but that it should not view it as a sign of weakness or a shift in positions on matters outstanding.

As the impasse between the government and the GPSU on the 2001 wages issue intensifies, Yarde is sticking to the position that adequate notice was given of the intention to proceed to arbitration after a deadlock was declared.

The government has repeatedly claimed that the issue of arbitration is dead since the union had not indicated its intention to explore that option once the conciliation process had broken down on October 18, last year.

Gopaul when contacted on Tuesday had maintained that the union had taken 54 days to officially signal its intention to move to arbitration, thereby exceeding what could be viewed as a reasonable timeframe.

Gopaul in his letter yesterday in response to the GPSU's strike ultimatum again reiterated that the time taken by the union to proceed to arbitration had been exceeded and further that it was outside the period of the fiscal year.

He noted that union had then argued that the terms of resumption agreement of 1999 bound the government to arbitration and is a legally enforceable document in keeping with the 1984 labour amendment.

The government sought legal advice on this and put forward the position that the terms of resumption agreement is not a collective agreement and the arbitration clause in it was not applicable as it did not replace the existing agreement in the 1987 Public Service Rules.

Gopaul - head of the public service - added that even if the government was to accept - while not admitting that the 1999 terms of resumption is binding - use of the terms there is a stipulation that arbitration must be formally sought within 30 days after failure at conciliation.

He further stated that the 1999 agreement was negotiated under duress (during the course of the strike) and that the labour act already makes provision for arbitration.

Rebutting, Yarde stated that it was the same rule under which the union had applied for arbitration in 1999 which the government had refused leading to the 57-day strike and consequently the terms of resumption or as it was formally titled a memorandum of agreement. This, he stated, was intended to be the guide for future issues requiring arbitration.

Yarde pointing to that document stated that clause 8(ii) never indicated a time limit on the commencement of arbitration as is being argued by Gopaul rather it said "in future, where salary and wage negotiations fail to result in agreements and third party conciliation of 30 days fails, it is agreed that until entrenched into the collective agreement, the parties will in respect of future disputes adopt the same method of arbitration as set out in this agreement."

According to Yarde even the Chief Labour Officer who was at the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement along with several other group on recognising the binding nature of the agreement proceeded to invite the parties to submit to arbitration.

While insisting that there is no legally stipulated time frame for arbitration to commence, the GPSU head further said that the process had to be initiated by the Ministry of Labour after it had declared that the conciliation process had reached a deadlock. This was however never forthcoming, leading to the union initiating communication with the ministry to enquire about the move to arbitration.

He admitted that at the time of the breakdown in talks that the labour ministry mediator, the Deputy Chief Labour Officer had raised the issue of the next step as had been argued by Gopaul. Yarde argued, however, that the GPSU representatives at the talks, Leslie Melville and Randolph Kirton, had proceeded to indicate that the union wanted to move to arbitration.

The GPSU president is however of the opinion that a message from President Bharrat Jagdeo offering to meet with the union had resulted in the labour ministry adopting a wait and see policy hoping that those discussions would have borne some fruit.

It was this wait to activate the process that Gopaul is trying to make out as delay in requesting arbitration by the union, Yarde contended.

Challenging the PSM permanent Secretary to point to any legal limitation governing the move to arbitration as with the cases of conciliation and negotiations, the GPSU president stated that government itself was in breach of these procedures when it took nearly ten months to commence negotiations for wages and salaries after being officially invited by the union to talks in August 2000.

He pointed to stages 4 and 6 of the grievance procedure which stated that as soon as possible but within two weeks and on a matter of general policy within 10 days after requests, the PS should meet with the union for discussions.

The GPSU president is also of the opinion that the government never intended to proceed to arbitration since five days after the meeting at which a deadlock was reached, it issued a circular stating that it would offer the 5.5% to public servants. Gopaul in the letter said that this had been done in recognition of the plight of the workers and the union had not objected to it.

On the issue of duress, Yarde said there were instances where the government held him to ransom by claiming that if he did not sign agreements at the time of the strike the president would have declared a state of emergency. Further, union members were attacked during the strike.

Yarde said the memorandum of agreement, of which the terms of resumption was a sub-title, is a collective agreement with the latter title merely highlighting prominently the need for persons to resume duties.

Chief Labour Officer, Mohamed Akeel when contacted yesterday indicated that the discussion over arbitration had been concluded while admitting that there was no specified timeframe for the commencement of the process.