Dear Editor,

A number of viewers would have been exposed last week to what can only be described as a ‘conundrumatic’ representation of employment practices in Guyana, by one of, if not, its most reputable firm.   It was the view of a distinctive group of women exhibiting placards, and trying to articulate to the TV interviewer, in the sound bites availed them, their employment dilemma.

Piecing together the snippets of conversation, it would appear that:

i)    They were ‘contracted’ to work for the firm for an average of three months at a time.

ii)   The ‘contracts’ were renewed after termination of the previous contract period.

iii)  Consequently they were ‘contractors’ and not on the permanent establishment of the firm.

iv)   As legitimate ‘contractors’ they logically fell within the category of the self-employed.

v)    Termination therefore was easily effected.

vi)   Notwithstanding their ‘non-employee’ status, the claim was that they were ‘paying NIS’ – presumably by deduction from their ‘fees’ (salaries).

vii)  Assuming this was an accurate claim it meant that the ‘employer’ (or should it read ‘client’) was either making the matching ‘employer’ portion of NIS contributions, or was deducting and paying on their behalf the whole sum normally payable by a ‘self-employed’ person.

viii) The foregoing was said to be the arrangement accepted by the group of women workers for periods ranging from one to four years. There was no elaboration as to the duration of the intervals between ‘contracts.’

ix)   Additionally, there was one reference to union representation (the GLU) – again subject to verification, since it would be an interesting labour relations development whereby ‘contractors’ are ‘unionised’ as if they were in fact ‘employees.’ Notwithstanding the latter, and subject to the verification of the accuracy of the televised claims, it may be of interest, and indeed a responsibility, of the Chief Labour and Occupational Health and Safety Officer, to investigate the ramifications of the alleged arrangement, possibly with relevance to the Termination of Employment Severance Pay Act – that is, of course, after adjudication on whether or not ‘contractors’ can enjoy ‘employee’ status at the same time, unless specifically provided for in their ‘contract.’ A conundrum?

Yours faithfully,
E B John