Dear Editor,

I will plead guilty as charged by Industrial Relations guru cum Advisor to RUSAL, Mr Mohamed Akeel, for being less than objective in the dispute between the GB&GWU and RUSAL. In my letter to the press I stated that I stayed away from providing a public opinion even though asked because I am closer to the brothers involved than mere acquaintances. Let me state too that I do not ‘make fun’ when it comes to issues relating to the welfare of citizens and that is not ‘today ’tory.’ Because of this predisposition I have no apology for looking out for the betterment of the workers and their families.

Everyone has alluded to the need for compassion and understanding when requesting increases and wages improvement, taking into consideration the prevailing economic situation. Mr Akeel said so in his letter and that the workers were accommodating. What then was responsible for such a major deviation in attitude by the workers and their representatives?

In relation to his ‘devil incarnate’ statement, well I speak based on what I have been told by some workers of the company. I have not had a discussion with anyone who said that things were easily managed. It is a fact that if you take a census in many industrial workplaces many will cry tough. However, BOSAI in Linden, not as large a company as RUSAL, was in similar circumstances but made valiant efforts to deal with the issues in Linden.  They had retrenched and everyone understood; and then they paid a four per cent increase and everyone agreed. These were difficult times but the mood and air of negotiations and passing information to the union were acceptable. Recently, rumours were circulating about another bout of retrenchment and I asked management about it and they said that it was not accurate. Non-objective people like me see these differences as not infinitesimal and therefore offer no apology.

Mr Akeel’s next statement about the repudiation of the CLA by the union resulting in the company’s stance of derecognition of the union was most interesting. Coming from a Chief Labour Officer (CLO) who demitted office not so long ago, I wondered in my first letter what his advice was in this matter, bearing in mind that settling disputes at all costs was the motif of this revered office. Persons came to recognize this office as the pinnacle of dispute resolution and invariably accepted the positions arrived at, even when arbitration was agreed on. A person of his stature is not taken lightly and so my question is whether the equivalence of the union’s actions as described by him, is derecognition and union busting? What would have been his position had he been CLO? I knew that he settled many disputes with this same company and union in the past. Is there a difference now? Are there contemporary industrial relations precedents such as this one in Guyana?

I stand accused among others without his naming anyone (except Mr R Corbin who can defend himself), of being less than objective. Again, I accept with no apologies. But tell me; is it possible that he can be objective in the current dispensation? When these are answered the discourse can continue maybe with some more objectivity. As to date the issue is not settled.

Yours faithfully,
Orrin Gordon