Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 204, November 1980

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

1. 271. The Committee has already examined this case in February 1980 when it presented interim conclusions in paragraphs 313 to 335 of its 199th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 212th Session (March 1980). The Government sent its additional observations in a letter dated 3 June 1980.
2. 272. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 273. The Committee previously examined allegations in this case concerning firstly the non-implementation of a public sector collective agreement providing for minimum salary and wage increases for 1977, 1978 and 1979 and of another agreement for the sugar industry and the withdrawal of normal annual increments from workers, and secondly, anti-union measures taken during or after a strike which had been called in connection with the non implementation of the agreements, i.e. the arrest for two hours of a trade union official; 82 dismissals, 12 suspensions and penalisation of 30 workers after the strike; a police baton-charge of union pickets in the presence of the Minister of Health, Housing and Labour.
2. 274. The Committee noted the Government's general denial of the allegations and its explanation that the activities of the four complainant unions were politically motivated. The Government had pointed out that the complainants had not resorted to existing procedures for the settlement of disputes. The Committee noted that the allegation of police violence against pickets was the subject of a libel action at the instance of the Minister. While noting that the strike referred to had been called off, the Governing Body, on the Committee's recommendation, requested the Government:
   • - to provide additional observations on the allegations 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;
   • - to provide its observations on the allegations concerning measures taken against strikers; and
   • - to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of the libel suit brought by the Minister and provide a copy of the judicial decision, with the reasons given therefore, when it was available.

B. The Government's reply

1. 275. In its letter of 3 June 1980, the Government reiterates its claim that the four complainant organisations have political motives for presenting the complaint because it is election year in Guyana and they have for some time been collaborating with the opposition party. It also generally points out that the issues raised by the complainants are being dealt with by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on their behalf, yet the TUC itself has not complained to the ILO. As regards the first allegation that the minimum wage provisions of the 23 August 1977 public sector minimum wage Agreement and the March 1978 sugar industry Collective Agreement have not been implemented, the Government states that they were described as, and understood by all parties to be, an act of faith. The Government quotes article 6 of the August 1977 Agreement which provides: "This Agreement shall be interpreted as an act of faith, and the Trades Union Congress and its affiliates will do everything within their power to ensure that in all sections and areas of activity, there is full production and increased productivity". Article 4 of the March 1978 Agreement reads the same. In his 1979 Budget Speech (a copy of which was supplied by the Government), the Minister of Economic Development and Cooperatives explained why the Government did not find it possible to implement the increases for 1979 which had been set out in the act of faith: the negative growth of the economy in 1978; the consequential failure of the economy to generate savings; failure of export earnings to improve the balance-of-payments position and the impact of wage increases. The Government points out that even the workers themselves, assembled at the annual May Day Rally, threw out a resolution put forward by the General Secretary of the TUC calling on the Government to implement the increase. As for the allegation that the usual annual increments due in 1979 were discontinued, the Government states that according to the 23 August 1977 Agreement, salary adjustments were to be made on the basis of a formula which ensured that each worker should receive either an adjusted sum or an increment whichever was the greater amount; however, for the same reason as the non-payment of the 1979 increases, i.e. lack of the anticipated growth in the economy, the Government could not find it possible to pay the increments for 1979.
2. 276. In reply to the Committee's request for information on the procedures which were available for the settlement of complaints in regard to these matters, the Government states that all the unions involved had collective agreements in force which set out representation procedures for the settlement of disputes. The Government provides an extract from the agreement between the Guyana National Trading Corporation and the CCWU, by way of an example, which allows for a three-stage procedure in grievance disputes (mutual discussion; if no settlement is reached, a meeting between the union representative and the departmental manager; if no settlement is then reached, a meeting shall be arranged between the union branch secretary, and representatives of the National Executive of the union if desired, and the Personnel Director). For general questions, either the General Secretary of the union or the Personnel Director of the company may request a joint meeting between the union executives and the company to discuss any question affecting the general conditions of employment. If no settlement is reached under this procedure or under the third stage outlined above, either party may refer the matter to the Chief Labour Officer and request him to intervene as a conciliator. If then no settlement is reached, an arbitration process shall decide the matter. The Government point.; out that the complainants did not avail themselves of these procedures.
3. 277. Concerning the allegation that measures were taken against strikers, the Government states that the President of the CCWU was arrested for two hours for attempting to lead a procession for which there was no police permission, nor even a request for police permission. The Government denies that he was taken to a military outpost and states that he was kept in police custody to preserve law and order. According to the Government, at no time did the police attempt to prevent peaceful picketing, and no workers were dismissed, suspended or penalised because of strike action taken in August 1979. It explains that, subsequent to the union's call for striking workers to return to work, 82 workers employed in 5 government-owned corporations failed to report for work. The services of these workers were accordingly terminated on 23 August 1979 and they were granted the full benefits concomitant with termination procedures such as payment in lieu of notice, etc. At all times the unions had available to them the grievance procedure embodied it their Recognition Agreements with the respective corporations for the processing of any dispute which may have arisen out of these terminations; the unions, however, preferred to rely on direct talks between the government and the TUC and these are still continuing.
4. 278. The Government states that the Committee will be kept apprised of the outcome of the libel suit brought by the minister of Health, Housing and Labour against the newspaper which published allegations similar to those made by the complainant unions, i.e. that he was present when the police baton-charged picketing workers, when such court hearings have concluded.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 279. This case concerns allegations of non-implementation of certain collective agreements and the withdrawal of normal increments, and anti-union measures, i.e. the arrest of a trade union official, dismissals, suspensions and penalisation of workers after a strike and a police baton-charge of union pickets in the presence of a Government Minister.
2. 280. As regards the allegation that the August 1977 public sector agreement and the March 1978 sugar industry agreement providing for minimum wage increases and the payment of increments in 1979 have not been implemented, the Committee notes the Government's reply that these agreements were mere acts of faith, understood by all parties thereto as being so, and the fact that the complainants did not resort to the comprehensive disputes procedure (three-stage discussion; conciliation by the Chief Labour Officer and arbitration) available to them through the various collective agreements in force between the unions and the government-run employer corporations. While recalling the importance of Article 4 of Convention ho. 98, ratified by Guyana, which states that the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations should be encouraged and promoted with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, the Committee considers that in view of the wording of the collective agreements, that were freely entered into by the workers' organisations, no violation of trade union rights has been proven. It is accordingly of the opinion that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
3. 281. Concerning the allegation that anti-union measures were taken against strikers, the Committee considers firstly the case of the CCWU President who was arrested for two hours on 18 August 1979. According to the complainants, this was an anti-union measure; according to the Government, the arrest was for a breach of the laws on holding processions and the detention was to preserve law and order. The Committee would have liked to have information as to the nature of the procession being organised by the CCWU President on the occasion of his arrest. It would nevertheless recall the principle that although the right to hold trade union meetings is a basic requisite of the free exercise of trade union rights, the organisations concerned must observe the general provisions relating to public meetings, which ire applicable to all. In this case, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, there was no request for authorisation to cold the procession, and it considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
4. 282. Secondly, as regards the dismissal of 82 workers, suspension of 12 and penalisation of 30 other workers, the Committee notes the Government's denial and explanation that the 82 workers were dismissed for having failed to report for work after the unions themselves had called the strike off. The Committee also notes that the TUC and the Government are at present having talks on this situation. The Committee would like to point out that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures - and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. In the present case, the Committee would like to be kept informed of the outcome of the discussions at present under way between the Government and the TUC as regards the 82 dismissed workers.
5. 283. As for the allegation concerning violence against pickets, the Committee notes that the Minister of Health, Housing and Labour has brought a libel action against the newspaper which published certain allegations and that the Government will inform the Committee of the outcome when the court hearings have concluded. In view of the fact that the Government had previously denied that the police baton-charged or injured any union pickets, the Committee considers it appropriate to recall generally the principle that pickets acting in accordance with the law should not be subject to interference by the public authorities.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 284. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) as regards the alleged non-implementation of certain collective agreements and the withdrawal of normal increments, to note that the agreements, which were freely entered into by the workers' organisations concerned, were understood to be interpreted as acts of faith and accordingly to decide that as no violation of trade union rights has been proven, this aspect of the case does not call for further examination;
   • (b) as regards the alleged anti-union measures taken during and after a strike:
   • (i) to decide, for the reasons set out in paragraph 281 above that the allegation relating to the arrest of a trade union leader does not call for further examination;
   • (ii) to draw the Government's attention to the principle set out in paragraph 282 above concerning the fact that workers should enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination such as dismissal or other prejudicial measures; and
   • (iii) to ask the Government to keep the Committee informed of the discussions it is having with the Trades Union Congress regarding the 82 dismissed workers;
   • (c) as for the allegation concerning violence against pickets:
   • (i) to draw the Government's attention to the principle set out in paragraph 283 above that pickets acting in accordance with the law should not be subject to interference by the public authorities; and
   • (ii) to note the Government's statement that it will inform the Committee of the outcome of the libel action brought by the Minister of Health, Housing and Labour.