Dear Editor,
Not too belatedly, I hope, I have come to apprehend the first words uttered by the Senior vice-president, GPSU when I switched to the channel carrying the panel discussion moderated by Carolyn Walcott.
As I understood, it was about the emasculation of the membership of the union which took place a decade or more ago through the termination of the ‘check-off’ system mutually agreed long before, between the parties. The unilateral act by the administration meant that public servants could no longer have their contributions (membership fees) to the union deducted from their monthly salaries, as provided for in the Recognition Agreement with the employers. As a consequence membership fell significantly, bereaving the union of substantial bargaining power; while at the other end of the industrial relations spectrum employees were in turn bereft of representation in respect of any discomfiture they might experience.
The situation was compounded by the termination of the ‘agency shop’ – a mechanism in the Recognition Agreement by which employees voluntarily pay dues to union without actually being members, but would benefit equally. The termination of both of these arrangements – check-off and agency shop – was subject to a judicial decision.
Notwithstanding, the Recognition Agreement remained intact, to the extent that negotiations between the parties led to the establishment, conduct and implementation of the Armstrong Tribunal, the known awards of which much discomfited the employers.
Since that experience the union seemed to be regarded as if in a state of limbo, with its arduous argumentation for increased basic pay for public servants enfeebled by total disdain. In the meantime potential membership was neutralised, and indeed disproportionately reduced, by the deliberate imposition of the contracted employee system upon the traditional public service, weakening any hope of expression of disenchantment amongst the ranks discriminated against, in terms of representation, pay and promotion.
And yet, contrarily from this perspective, the most recent ploy has been to include the president of the GPSU in the membership of a Public Service Commission, chaired (disjointedly) by another trade unionist.
The situation appears to make for a conundrum which speaks substantively to the formal status of a Recognition Agreement which subsists, and the actual relationship existing between the parties thereto.
At this juncture it would appear to allow for the union’s audacity in bringing to attention the intact clauses relating to the transaction of union contributions to be resuscitated, in terms of the initial breach of a still viable agreement, and to seek a ruling as to whether the initial withdrawal was a breach not only of a lawful agreement, but also of an acknowledged industrial relations principle; for it seems to have been overlooked by most stakeholders that there is insistence by the same authority that the unions in the sugar industry enjoy similar benefits. This contradiction is sufficiently obvious as to warrant judicial review.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
