Interim Report - Report No 199, March 1980

Case No 941 (Guyana) - Complaint date: 21-AUG-79 - Closed

1. 313. The complaint of the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE), the University of Guyana Staff Association (UGSA), the Clerical and Commercial Workers' Union (CCWU) and the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers' Union (GAWU) is contained in a telegram dated 21 August 1979. Further information was transmitted by the complainants in a letter dated 5 September 1979. The Government transmitted its observations in a letter dated 13 October 1979.
2. 314. Guyana has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• The complainants' allegations
  315. 315 In their telegram of 21 August 1979, the complainants state that during a strike the police baton-charged peaceful pickets on 17 and 18 August, injuring many persons. They also allege that Mr. Todd, president of the Clerical and Commercial Workers' Union, was arrested on 18 August and was held for two hours on political instructions. They state that the Minister of Labour introduced "scab" labour in the workplace and that strikers have been openly threatened with dismissals. In their letter dated 5 September 1979, the complainants explain that a strike, involving over 30,000 workers from the two main industries, bauxite and sugar, started on 12 July 1979 over the issue of non-payment of merit increments in the bauxite industry. The complainant unions joined in solidarity on 17 August. All the strikes were called off by 26 August 1979.
  316. 316 According to the complaint, bauxite workers are represented by the Guyana Mine Workers' Union (GMWU), an affiliate of the Trades Union Congress (TUC). They are employed by GUYMINE, a wholly nationalised entity, with whom they have entered into a collective agreement providing for employees to be paid their normal increments on an annual basis. The workers were forced to resort to strike action when, in breach of the agreement, the employer refused to pay the merit increments due in 1979.
  317. 317 Attached to the complaint is a copy of a minimum wage agreement for the public sector, entered into on 23 August 1977 between the Government of Guyana and the TUC, fixing the minimum rates at $8.40 per day and $200 per month for 1977; $11 and $258 for 1978, and $14 and $333 for 1979. The complainant unions indicate, however, that from the outset they had refused to recognise this agreement on the ground that they had not surrendered power to the TUC to negotiate with the Government on their behalf.
  318. 318 They go on to say that the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers' Union (GAWU) signed on 23 March 1978 a collective agreement with the Guyana Sugar Corporation which, inter alia, provided for a minimum wage of $14 per day for sugar workers. In breach of the agreement, this wage was not paid to the workers.
  319. 319 The complainants also indicate that since neither on 1 January 1979 nor thereafter did the Government implement the minimum rate provided for this year in the agreement with the TUC, they interpreted this failure as evidence of the lapse of this agreement. In fact, they add, certain state corporations paid to their employers their normal and usual increments, but, on the directive of the Government, these increments were discontinued with effect from 31 May 1979. The workers involved were mainly members of three of the complainant organisations (CCWU, GAWU and NAACIE) who suffered a reduction in their earnings from 1 June 1979, but the Government's directive affected all government employees.
  320. 320 According to the complaint, the TUC issued a statement insisting on the need for the Government to meet its commitment in respect of the $14 daily wage for 1979, which the Government had alleged to be unable to do in its budget proposals in accordance with the right of workers to withdraw their labour in furtherance of an industrial dispute, a strike began in the bauxite industry on 12 July 1979. The complainants point out that since other unions had similar claims against their employers, it was natural that such unions would have sympathised with the bauxite workers. The CCWU, GAWU and NAACIE thus went on strike on 17 August. This industrial action directed against employers in the public sector is explained, according to the complainants, by the fact that 80 per cent of the economy of Guyana is under public ownership or control.
  321. 321 The complainants stress that the strike was not political and point out that the Mine Workers' Union (GMWU) is in fact an associate of the ruling People's National Congress party. However, they state, from the outset the Government deemed the complainants allegations strike political and decided to deal with it at that level. They quote statements made by the Government which in their view aimed at distorting the facts and claim that the Government controlled radio was also used to portray the strike as political.
  322. 322 The complainants allege that food, which was collected for the striking bauxite workers, was seized at gunpoint by the police under the pretext that those who were collecting the food were hoarding which is a criminal offence under the laws of Guyana; picketing CCWU members were beaten severely by the police in the presence of the Minister of Labour; picketing was prohibited despite the legality of the picket; busloads of strike breakers were brought in to take the place of striking workers; CCWU's President was arrested and held at a military outpost for two hours; strikers were threatened with loss of jobs when the strike ended, and in fact, to date 82 strikers have been dismissed. The complainants state that further victimisation after the strike included, in the commercial and clerical sector, retention of approximately 100 "scabs" hired by management on 17 August 1979; in the sugar sector, retention of over 1,200 "scabs" with a consequent reduction of flays worked per week per worker, and, in the sector covered by NAACIE, suspension of 12 workers, penalisation of 30 strikers by withdrawing their acting appointments and retention of 50 "scabs". The complainants state that if the Government is allowed to deem any strike political and deal with it in this way, it is likely that collective bargaining and trade unionism will cease to exist in Guyana.
• The Government's reply
  323. 323 In its letter of 13 October 1979, the Government rejects the complainants' allegations of infringements of trade union rights as unfounded, malicious and arising from ulterior political motive. It denies that the police baton-charged or injured any union pickets and states that the allegations published locally against the Minister of Health, Housing and Labour are now the subject matter of a libel action in the Guyana courts of law at the instance of the minister.
  324. 324 The Government claims that the GAWU has executive interlocking with a political party, frequently misuses trade unions to serve partisan political ends and often blurs the boundaries between partisan political activism and trade union activism. It states that the four complainant unions have for years worked in close collaboration with the political opposition party, the People's Progressive Party (PPP), and latterly also with a recently formed political faction calling itself the Working People's Alliance (WPA).
  325. 325 The Government claims that some opposition political groups sought to gain advantage from the July 1979 strike in the bauxite region which has been traditionally a political stronghold of the Government party. An alliance of the four unions with the PPP and WPA mounted a series of political meetings at which they claimed that the strike in the bauxite industry was a political one, the main purpose of which was to overthrow the Government, and advocated a general strike to cripple the economy and countrywide insurrectionary violence. In fact, the Government continues, three of the complainant unions served a 72-hour strike ultimatum on their employers. It provides copies of the strike notices dated 11 and 13 August 1979. The issues invoked by the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers' Union (GAWU) were profit-sharing for 1974, 1975 and 1976, violation of the wages agreement entered into with the Sugar Corporation on 23 March 1978, arbitrary withdrawal of merit increments, violation of the settlement of disputes agreement and arbitrary variation of recruitment policy and working conditions; the NAACIE strike notice cites failure of the employer to conclude a collective agreement and poor wages and the CCWU strike notice relies on non-observance of the TUC/Government Wages Agreement.
  326. 326 According to the Government, the employers responded that there existed clear procedures under the various agreements for resolving alleged disputes. In its written reply to one of the unions (a copy of which is provided), the Guyana Sugar Corporation pointed out that no grievance or dispute had been filed with the employers so that the issues could be examined in accordance with established industrial practice. The Corporation also stated that one of the issues had been referred to arbitration, and requested particulars of the other allegations made so that they could be discussed with the union. The Government adds that when the 72-hour deadline expired the three unions declared a new reason for striking, namely solidarity with the bauxite workers. Yet the Government points out that the GMWU never requested the four complainant unions or any other union to call any solidarity strike and the TUC, which was at all times actively engaged in attempting to resolve the bauxite issue, never encouraged, authorised or sanctioned any solidarity strike by its affiliates. The Government attaches to its letter a copy of excerpts from the TUC President's address to the September 1979 Trades Union conference which calls on the four unions to return to their declared role and to avoid taking action which was not backed by a majority decision. This, according to the Government, evidences the complainants' bad faith and poor standing.
  327. 327 Moreover, the Government supplies a report from the Commissioner of Police showing that between 7 August and 25 September 1979, the four unions (either as a group or separately) held thirty public political meetings with the necessary police permission to use public address systems. Thus, it claims, there is no restriction on the freedom of association nor the right to assembly as the complainants allege.
  328. 328 Lastly the Government recalls that this is election year in Guyana and states that the opposition parties are intent on using industrial disputes in their political campaigns.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Conclusions of the Committee
  329. 329 This case concerns a strike called, according to the complainant unions, in support of a strike in the bauxite industry, a dispute arising out of the non-payment of merit increments. The complainants refer in particular to the following measures allegedly taken during and after the solidarity strike: the confiscation of food intended for the use of the striking bauxite workers; police violence against picketers; prohibition of picketing; the use and retention of "scab" labour; the arrest of a trade union leader and the dismissal of workers who took part in the strike.
  330. 330 The Government's version and the complainants' version of these events differ considerably. For instance, the former considers the strike to be political due to the close links which exist between the four complainant unions - which seem to constitute a group within the TUC - and opposition political parties, and due to the fact that neither the GMWU nor the TUC called for solidarity action. The Government also points out that the complainants have not availed themselves of the existing procedures for the settlement of disputes. The complainants, for their part, deny that their strike was political.
  331. 331 The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its reply. Nevertheless, whatever the political elements which may have been involved in the strikes mentioned above, the Committee notes that the complainants refer to a collective agreement providing for minimum salary and wage increases for 1977, 1978 and 1979, in the public sector, and to another agreement, for the sugar industry, signed in March 1978. According to the complainants, the former agreement was not implemented by the Government as regards 1979 and the latter was not implemented at all. In addition, they allege that the usual annual increments falling due in 1979 were discontinued by decision of the Government. The Committee notes from the Government's reply the answer given by the public corporations to the grievances put forward in the strike notices served by the GAWU, NAACIE and CCWU. The position of these corporations seems to have been that the issues is question should be settled through the procedures provided for in the existing agreements. The Sugar Corporation, to which the Government refers specifically, invited the union to discuss the issues. This position apparently was not considered satisfactory by the complainant unions, which decided to go on strike, invoking solidarity with the bauxite workers who, according to the complaint, were facing similar problems.
  332. 332 Before proceeding further with the examination of this aspect of the case, the Committee, while noting that all the strikes have been called off, would like to request the Government to provide its observations on the allegations concerning non-fulfilment of the minimum wage agreements for the public sector as a whole and for the sugar industry, and on the withdrawal of regular increments, as well as information on the procedures which were available for the settlement of complaints in regard to these matters.
  333. 333 Regarding the measures allegedly taken by the Government on the occasion of the strike by GAWU, NAACIE and CCWU, the Committee notes the Government's denial of the allegation that the police baton.-charged any union pickets. The Government also indicates that a libel suit has been brought against the complainant unions regarding allegations published locally against the Minister of Health, Housing and Labour. The Committee considers that the findings of the court may provide useful information for proceeding with the examination of the facts relating- to this aspect of the complaint. Therefore, it would like to ask the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these judicial proceedings and provide a copy of the court decision, with the reasons given therefore, when it is available.
  334. 334 The complainants also refer to the arrest for two hours of Mr. Todd, President of CCWU, and to the dismissal of 82 workers, suspension of 12 and penalisation of 30 other workers. The Government has not referred specifically to these allegations in its reply.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 335. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to request the Government:
   • (i) to provide additional observations on the allegations mentioned in paragraph 331 above, concerning non implementation of certain collective agreements and withdrawal of normal increments, and information on the procedures which were available for the settlement of complaints in regard to these matters;
   • (ii) to provide its observations on the allegations mentioned in paragraph 334 above, concerning measures taken against strikers;
   • (iii) to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of the libel suit brought by the Minister of Health, Housing and Labour against the complainant unions and provide a copy of the judicial decision, with the reasons given therefore, when it is available;
   • (b) to take note of this interim report.
     • Geneva, 29 February 1980. (Signed) Roberto AGO, Chairman.