GTU withdraws ‘ridiculous’ challenge on teachers’ salary increases for 2019-2023

• Mar 20, 2024
• news
• 2224

THE Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) has withdrawn its application seeking to force the Ministry of Education (MoE) into discussions regarding teachers’ salary increases for the period 2019 to 2023.

The application was withdrawn on Tuesday in the Demerara High Court by the union’s attorney, Darren Wade, before Justice Sandil Kissoon who granted him leave to do same.

The GTU had moved to the High Court to declare that the GTU has a right to negotiate from 2019 to 2023, and the refusal to do so constitutes a breach of the union’s and its members’ right to collective bargaining.

The application aimed to assert the union’s right to negotiate, declare a binding agreement from March 7, 2024, and hold Chief Education Officer (CEO), Saddam Hussain and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Shannielle Hoosein-Outar in contempt.

However, Justice Kissoon found that most of the GTU’s requested reliefs were outside of his jurisdiction to grant.

Speaking following the court hearing, Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, who is a respondent in the case, said Wade wasted everyone’s time with one of the “most ridiculous” applications.

“We must get the facts straight. Mr Darren Wade brought us here to court in the most ridiculous application, seeking orders that could not have been granted… orders that were improperly claimed. The whole application was misconceived from top to bottom,” Nandlall told reporters outside of court on Tuesday.

The Attorney-General pointed out that he was very “charitable” to Wade and the GTU, since he did not seek an order for costs.

Nandlall pointed out however, that there was a “conflict” in the substantive case, whereby Hussain has alleged a particular narrative in his affidavit, while the GTU is alleging a different narrative.

“So, you have two affidavits that are conflicting. In my view, and in my learning of the conventional, legally permissible, in those circumstances, is that you put the two witnesses in a box, and you cross examine them based upon what they have said in an effort to reconcile the differences,” he explained.

However, Nandlall said a different method was chosen. The court ordered the MoE to provide all documents of previous meetings with the union from 2020 to February 2024.

He has to produce same before the hearing of the substantive case which comes up on Wednesday. This is a 24-hour timeframe.

“The respondent who has nothing to prove in the case has been ordered to produce minutes, which we will do. But the applicant has moved this court.

“The applicant is asking the court for relief; the applicant has to prove its case. The applicant is saying ‘what the respondent is saying is not true.’ But the respondent got to come and prove that what he’s saying is true. Let’s see how it turns out,” Nandlall said.

He contended that the documents the union is now asking for, both sides already have them in their possession, since the minutes in the formal negotiation processes were interrogated or corrected by both sides before being signed by the parties involved.

“To ask the court for minutes that you already have in your possession is abusive and nonsensical, but we were ordered to produce the minutes and we will produce the minutes,” he said.

He further said that the substantive matter before the court questions whether teachers who did not work and participated in the illegal strike, should be paid.

“That question can be determined by whatever minutes and whatever different factual narrative there are competing parties. That is a question of law. No work, no pay – that is the law of Guyana,” he said.

He explained that another big issue stemming from the case is whether government was right in stopping the deduction of GTU dues.

“In my view, whatever Saddam Hussain said in his affidavit or whatever Mark Lyte (GTU president) says, an affidavit can’t change the legality or illegality of that decision. So, in my view, the court is in charge, and I am to comply with the orders of the court,” the Attorney General said.

On March 4, following a court-appointed mediation, the GTU called off the illegal protest and agreed for the striking teachers to return to their classrooms.

However, on March 12, talks between the GTU and the MoE broke down again, after the ministry upheld the government’s position that discussions surrounding salary increases should be from 2024 onwards.

The GTU had asked for a 20 per cent increase and indicated that they are interested in discussing only salaries, particularly between the period 2019 and 2023, and nothing else.

The union maintained its determination to discuss only salary matters concerning the prior years and refused to address the other 25 matters which were identified for disussion by both the Ministry of Education and the union.

This resulted in the representatives of the union abandoning the process and walking out of the meeting.

Nandlall had previously explained that the time has passed for the government to entertain discussions regarding teachers’ salary increases for the period 2019 to 2023.

Central to this stance, is the government’s adherence to budgetary constraints and fiscal responsibility, ensuring that any salary increases are sustainable and aligned with the nation’s financial realities.

He contends that the government cannot be expected to negotiate wage increases for years that have already passed, particularly when teachers had already benefitted from salary adjustments during those periods.

https://guyanachronicle.com/2024/03/20/gtu-withdraws-ridiculous-challenge-on-teachers-salary-increases-for-2019-2023/