Dear Editor,
Mr Akeel gave a chronological account of events in the SN with respect to the current dispute between RUSAL and GB&GWU that clearly requires a response from the union (‘It is the bauxite union which walked away from an agreement’ SN, January 28).
My input by previous letter merely sought to highlight two areas of concern, that is, the absence of good faith bargaining and the tardy approach of the Ministry of Labour in trying to resolve the dispute.
The duty to bargain in good faith ensures that when two parties are obligated to meet with each other to discuss their mutual problems in a way that satisfies the phrase “make every reasonable effort,” they are likely to arrive at a better understanding of each other’s concerns, thereby enhancing the potential for a resolution of their differences without recourse to economic sanctions. This duty therefore reinforces the obligation of an employer to recognize the bargaining agent, and it can be said that the duty is intended to foster rational, informed discussion, thereby minimizing the potential for unnecessary industrial conflict.
Bargaining in good faith is a two-way process, so the union also has an equal responsibility to be accommodating and rational in trying to avoid such conflict.
The fact that the union signed an agreement and reneged is immaterial, since all it indicates is a return to the status quo, and a return to the normal process in resolving the dispute should have continued either bilaterally or with assistance from the Ministry of Labour. But according to reports, the employees went on strike and the company proceeded with its plan to retrench employees. So rather than trying to improve a bad situation it only made it worse.
Whether retrenchment was done in accordance with Section 12(3) (A) of the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act (TESPA) that requires a month’s notification to the union and the Ministry of Labour can only be confirmed by Mr Akeel, who was instrumental in drafting that act. On the other hand, the union must know that if the Collective Labour Agreement has provisions for the union to strike in pursuance of any dispute, then strike action not in accordance with those provisions will be construed as a repudiatory breach of the agreement and therefore illegal.
The legality or illegality of strike action is also found in Section 8(1)(F) of the TESPA. Section 8(1) states the following reason does not constitute good or sufficient cause for dismissal or for the imposition of disciplinary action – employee participation in industrial action in conformity with the provisions of any law or collective labour agreement.
So, as can be seen, any strike not in conformity with any required provision or law is illegal and appropriate action by the company may be justified.
The Ministry of Labour is the relevant government agency that intervenes either through request or directly when disputes occur between management and unions. The process involves conciliation, and where a deadlock is declared, arbitration in keeping with most collective labour agreements.
Apparently discussions are still in progress but there is a general perception of bias and partiality in dealing with this particular issue, especially as it relates to the haste with which the GAWU/ GuySuCo dispute was resolved.
Yours faithfully,
D. Sookdeo
