Dear Editor,
In an article in the Kaieteur News dated February 14 and captioned, ‘Brassington dodges questions on Marriott tender process,’ it was reported that Brassington had “no comment” about whether the contractor would be engaged to review the employment clause of the agreement in light of the public outcry of no Guyanese being employed during this construction phase.
I am thinking that the clause in the agreement may be void as it may be in breach of the constitution and laws of Guyana.
A class action could be instituted asking the court to rule that the contractor building the Marriott Hotel is discriminating against Guyanese in favour of foreign nationals. The Prevention of Discrimination Act, Part II Section 4 (1) states, “For the purposes of this Act, a person discriminates against another person if the first mentioned person makes in any of the grounds mentioned in subsection (2), any distinction, exclusion or preference the intent or effect of which is to nullify or impair equality of opportunity or treatment in any employment or occupation.
Subsection (2) states “The grounds referred to in subsection (1) are –
Race, religion, colour, ethnic origin, indigenous population, national extraction, social origin…
Any characteristic which appertains generally or is generally imputed to persons or a particular race, sex, religion, colour, ethnic origin, indigenous population, national extraction… “
Section (3) states: “Any act or omission or any practice or policy that directly or indirectly results in discrimination against a person on the grounds referred to in subsection (2), is an act of discrimination regardless of whether the person responsible for the act or omission or the practice or policy intended to discriminate.”
It is stated in Part III, Protection against discrimination in employment, Section 5 (1) “It shall be unlawful for any person who is an employer or any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a person who is an employer, in relation to recruitment, selection or employment … To discriminate against that other person on the grounds listed in section (4) subsection (2) –
In the advertisement for the job;
In the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment;
In determining who should be offered employment.”
In defending the contractor’s decision to hire Chinese nationals, Brassington said that the company indicated that “(it) had examined the level of skills available for the project as well as the levels of productivity.” I assume that this feasibility study can be utilised by future contractors. It is my opinion that such a study is important reading for the Guyanese nation so that we can understand and possibly reassess ourselves and as such it should be made public.
Section 29 states, “The Chief Labour Officer may institute or cause to be instituted any prosecution for the purpose of enforcing any provisions of this Act and any officer of the Department of Labour may appear as prosecutor for and on behalf of the Chief Labour Officer.”
I am calling on Guyanese workers both skilled and unskilled to approach the contractors and request employment, and if they have been denied to the benefit of a particular nationality to take the case to the Department of Labour or to any sympathetic lawyer who may be able to institute a class action.
I am penning these lines to stimulate discussion on what could be a precedent that would result in the denial of the Guyanese people of their fundamental right to work and hence to existence. I am wondering whether the findings of the study can be used to deny Guyanese employment in the USA, Canada, etc.
The insult of the secret deal on the Marriott is being compounded by the injustice of discrimination against the Guyanese people and should be resisted at all costs. United we stand, divided we fall.
The past has demonstrated the Guyanese people’s ability to unite in the face of common oppression. This is a clear case where the situation demands the same level of united action.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Bisessar
