Govt, GPSU still at odds over Armstrong allowances ruling
Stabroek News
January 10, 2003
While the Public Service Ministry (PSM) hopes to negotiate a multi-year wage package for public servants, the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) says the government must first fulfil its obligations on allowances as set out in the 1999 Armstrong Tribunal ruling.
The GPSU met with the PSM on Monday at the invitation of Permanent Secretary Dr Nanda Gopaul but they did not engage in wages and salary negotiations.
GPSU President Patrick Yarde told Stabroek News that the GPSU was not averse to meeting with the PSM but it would not engage in discussions on wages and salaries for 2002 or 2003 until a number of outstanding issues in the Armstrong Tribunal were first resolved.
The government’s position is that discussions on wages for 2002 have ended with its payout of 5% to public servants.
Dr Gopaul contended in a January 6 letter to the union that the awards, based on the terms of reference of the Armstrong Tribunal, have been honoured.
Yarde in a letter the following day asked for answers to the following questions: whether increments were paid to public officers with effect from 1999; whether the key and critical payment supplement, which was awarded by the tribunal was paid to those categories of officers who qualified for this payment for 2002; whether the allowances were increased in keeping with the award of 31.06% for 1999 and 26.66% for 2000; and whether arrangements were made for public service employees as a part of the Guyanese community to access funding for poverty alleviation.
Yarde also described Dr Gopaul’s letter as misleading in that it had referred to the union’s prior refusal to discuss “wages, salaries and allowances” for 2003 when “your letter (of invitation) of November 25 was only to discuss wages and salaries. At no time did you state your desire to also discuss allowances for the period 2003 to 2005, to which public officers were entitled.”
In his letter to the union, Dr Gopaul said the government had complied with the award of the Armstrong Tribunal to the fullest and had made this position known to the union on numerous occasions especially during the course of negotiations for the years 2001 and 2002. Dr Gopaul said the government therefore, finds it very unusual for the demand to be made that “we honour the tribunal.”
In an invited comment, Dr Gopaul told Stabroek News yesterday that he is currently responding to Yarde’s letter of January 7 and would advise on the contents later. He repeated that the government had honoured the tribunal award based on the terms of reference which clearly indicated wages and salaries for 1999 and 2000.
Any other awards flowing from the tribunal, he said, were outside of the terms of reference and the government was not bound by these. The government, he said, could not be held responsible for any award made outside of the terms of reference and would defend that position.
Dr Gopaul said he has told the union that this was an issue in which they did not have a case. He added that the union may be holding on to this “red herring to, perhaps, build up emotions or create false hopes and unease among public servants.” He said the union should seek legal advice on the interpretation of the terms of reference or seek clarification from the members who sat on the tribunal. The government has approached the courts for an interpretation of several of the issues raised by the GPSU in relation to the Armstrong tribunal ruling.
The union’s decision not to engage the PSM until such time as the outstanding matters were resolved was taken at the union’s Executive Council Meeting of December 19, last year.
According to the GPSU, current matters to be dealt with include arbitration for wages, salaries and allowances for 2001; arbitration for wages, salaries and allowances of 2002; and wages, salaries and allowances increases for 2003 to 2005.
Yarde in a letter dated January 7 to Chief Labour Officer Mohamed Akeel said that the PSM - an integral part of the bargaining process - by not agreeing to submit to arbitration is in breach of the Trades Union Recognition Act.
He said the union was calling on Akeel as Secretary of the Trade Union Recognition Board to notify the Permanent Secretary that he was in breach of the Act and if it failed to comply within seven days the GPSU would impose sanctions in keeping with the law.
The union is awaiting a response from Akeel.
For the year 2002, the government has approved a 5% across-the- board increase in salaries and wages retroactive to January 1.
On the issue of industrial action which the GPSU has threatened based on a notice of March last year, Dr Gopaul told the union the threats were a concern to the government. He said that since the March, 2002 notice the government and the union have been in discussion over a wide range of issues, resolving some of them in a very amicable manner.
Dr Gopaul said to revert to the notice of industrial action ten months ago “is unheard of in industrial relations practices and procedures.” He said that any intention to take industrial action must be in keeping with the terms of the Collective Labour Agreement that governs the relationship between the parties. In addition, he said that the agreement for the avoidance and settlement of disputes pre-dates the 1984 Labour Amendment Act.
According to Dr Gopaul, in his affidavit to the High Court in relation to the government’s approach for clarification of the Armstrong tribunal issues, he said that the relationship between the government and the representatives of the workers is governed under a collective bargaining agreement entered into between the Public Service Ministry and the Guyana Public Service Union as laid out in the public service rules 1987 Appendix Q 1.
He also said in the affidavit that a terms of resumption agreement was not a collective bargaining agreement. He added that clause 8(ii) of the terms of resumption agreement does not replace the 1987 Public Service Rules and Labour Act which makes provision for arbitration. He noted that terms of resumption agreements were temporary in nature and were entered into primarily to preserve the status quo ante, to operate during a specific period in the future and to set the stage for negotiations to take place on the problems that caused employees to take industrial action.
On the other hand, Yarde told Stabroek News that based on the laws of Guyana, where a trade union obtains a certificate of recognition for workers in a bargaining unit, the employer shall recognise the union; and the union and the employer shall bargain in good faith and enter into negotiations with each other for the purpose of collective bargaining. He said that a union which fails to comply with the provisions shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of $28,000. The same will apply to the employer who fails to comply. The employer would be required to pay a further $500 for each day the breach continues until the employer pays.
Yarde contended that all the variations, amendments and standing rules in the 1987 amended rules were done with the consultation and involvement of the Guyana Public Service Union. (Miranda La Rose)
