Teachers’ strike was legal; salaries must not be deducted – Justice Kissoon - Kaieteur News (2024)

Apr 20, 2024 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

• Govt. acted unlawfully and was discriminatory

• Govt. sidelined and undermined Union

• Strike by the GTU was legal and justified

• Chief Education Officer’s evidence was inaccurate and self-serving

• Govt. failed to engage the GTU in collective bargaining

By Rehanna Ramsay

Kaieteur News – High Court Judge Sandil Kissoon on Friday ruled that the Guyana Teachers Union (GTU) led strike was legal. As a result, Justice Kissoon prohibited the government from acting on its decision to deduct the salaries of teachers who participated in the month-long strike in February.

In a marathon judgment which lasted several hours, the High Court Judge also slammed the government’s decision to discontinue deducting union dues from the salaries of teachers for the union describing the move as “arbitrary, unilateral, and discriminatory”.

Alluding to a number of landmark decisions and judicial reports from several Commonwealth nations, in addition to the Constitution of Guyana and evidence presented to the Court, the jurist declared that teachers were not only within their right to strike but that “right is enshrined in the Constitution.”

Kissoon made this determination despite arguments by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC–the government’s legal representative—that the teachers enjoy a “freedom to strike” but no right to strike under the Constitution.

Nandlall argued that the Common Law principle of “no work, no pay” was justifiably applied by the government.

Rejecting the argument in its entirety, Justice Kissoon explained that “the right to strike, like the right to engage in collective bargaining, is firmly embedded in the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to every citizen of Guyana under the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana”.

Justice Kissoon found too that the government had sidelined and undermined the GTU.

He noted in his view that the Ministry of Education and the Government failed to engage in Collective Bargaining as it relates to the proposed multi-year agreement for the period 2019-2023, which includes the critical issue of wages and salaries. This was despite the best efforts of the GTU to engage in negotiations.

According to the judge, the evidence revealed that from 2020 and the days leading up to the strike in February, “letters were sent to every conceivable person in authority” by the Union, including the President.

He noted that there was no evidence of a response, with the exception of the belated letter of response by the Permanent Secretary of Education Ministry, and the Chief Labour Officer.

The judge noted, inter alia, that the letter written by Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Shannielle Hoosein-Outar dated February 6, 2024, which was addressed to the President of the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) Dr Mark Lyte included a number of “grave allegations of criminal nature.”

The Court noted that the said letter communicated Government’s decision to discontinue the deduction of Union dues from the salaries of teachers and contained allegations made against the General Secretary of the GTU, without any evidence.

“Those allegations, those contentions, those assertions, erroneously, arbitrarily and unilaterally informed a decision based on a false premise, which is unlawful and has to be struck down,” the Judge said.

In the case of the Chief Labour Officer, the Judge said there was no evidence that he conducted a single inquiry to ascertain when the multi-year proposal was submitted by the Union, and whether the two sides had initiated negotiations.

The Judge said instead, the Chief Labour Officer, relying only on correspondences from the Government, concluded that the conditions for conciliation and arbitration had not been met, when requested by the Union.

The Judge concluded that the Government, including by the actions of the Chief Labour Officer, had created the condition for industrial action, given its refusal to engage in collective bargaining, and matters directly related to wages and salaries.

The Judge noted too that even the President’s meeting with teachers in the absence of union representatives, could not be seen as any form of collective bargaining. He said many of the decisions taken by the Government were unilateral.

“The teachers lifted their voices and they asked for bread and they were given stones,” the Judge added.

As it relates to the evidence presented by witnesses in the trial, the judge made several determinations. He noted that in his testimony, the Chief Education Officer (CEO), Saddam Hussain was not “full and frank” with the Court; instead he attempted to justify the actions of the Ministry of Education.

According to Justice Kissoon, Hussain’s evidence “bordered on tarnishing the reputation of his office, constituted a misrepresentation of the facts, and was found to be inaccurate and self-serving.”

Further, he concluded that the CEO intended to deceive the Court with his testimony and as a result his “evidence cannot be acted upon or relied upon by the Court.”

In contrast, the Court found that the evidence presented by the Second Vice President of the GTU, Julian Cambridge was “credible and direct.”

Outside the courtroom, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who represented the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), welcomed the decision describing it as a “significant” and “landmark” one that further strengthens the rights of workers in Guyana.

Forde represented the interest of the GTUC in association with attorney Darren Wade who represented the GTU.

However, the Attorney General deemed the decision as dangerous and having far reaching effects. He said that the government will definitely appeal the decision.

He maintained that Guyana’s constitution provides a freedom, not a right, to strike though doing so may incur sanctions such as withholding payments. In such cases, Nandlall said the issue of “no work, no pay” arises.

“Now you are going to have striking workers who are going to be compensated for work not done. What you have done there is you have turned the law upside down,” Nandlall lamented.

He added, “… You can’t use the tool of interpretation to expand the meaning of words beyond their natural grammatical meaning…. You can’t convert the term freedom into a right using interpretative mechanisms and principles.”

In a subsequent statement issued on Friday, the Government of Guyana noted the High Court has completely dismantled a salutary principle which has struck a vital balance between the employer and the employee in industrial relations for centuries.

“The Court ruled that the ‘no work no pay’ principle no longer applies to Guyana – a position that does not obtain either in the Commonwealth Caribbean or indeed this hemisphere.

The repercussions that will flow from this ruling will have devastating impact on industrial relations both in the private and the public sector. Workers now can strike with impunity and they will have to be paid. In so ruling, and in an effort to find a constitutional right for the worker, the Court simultaneously is depriving the employer of his property (wages).” the Government said in its statement.

Related

• discriminatory, Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU), High Court Judge Sandil Kissoon, legal, salaries