Dear Editor,
Congratulations to the management of GPL for revising its position on the Francis Carryl arbitration ruling. I followed with keen interest as the development surrounding the ruling unfolded. The following questions came to my mind:
1. On what basis was GPL challenging something that the company had agreed to?
2. What is the purpose of the Labour Ministry and its officials if the parties who are entrusted with facilitating a process and so do are challenged on completion of that process? For me, by refusing to accept the ruling of the arbitrator, GPL was essentially ignoring the process that led to the award. Are we about to see the beginning of a new era for labour relations in Guyana where parties can ignore the grievance procedure and head to the courts instead?
3. Are officials at GPL who are entrusted to manage the human resources and industrial relations functions of the company respected and are they seen as competent? If this is so why didn’t the corporation trust them to defend the company at the arbitration proceeding and so stand initially by the award.
4. Are our courts viewed as an institution that may be used to play a power game and frustrate some? GPL had initially planned to move to the courts, and Guyanese know how long it sometimes takes to have court matters completed − affected workers may have migrated, the union leadership may have changed and who knows what more.
5. Did GPL see the need to strengthen its industrial relation arms so that a recurrence is avoided, the company is saved time and money and its industrial relation practices are in sync with acceptable and contemporary norms?
6. Would the government have allowed GPL to challenge the award taking into consideration the fact that the company was on record as saying it was experiencing financial difficulties?
I am sure many Guyanese will join with me in congratulating GPL for not initiating industrial relations practices that may be deemed counter-productive.
Yours faithfully,
K. Singh
