Dear Editor,
My attention was drawn to the subject captioned ‘Agri ministry challenges severance projection for Wales workers’ in your February 16 edition. It’s unfortunate that I have to respond to the said article through this medium, since had either the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) or GuySuCo responded to the invitation to attend the symposium at Moray House Trust on February 5, not only would the issue of severance have been clarified, but a lot more important issues relative to the future of the estate, its employees and cane farmers could have been properly ventilated, debated and discussed. It was an ideal opportunity missed by GuySuCo and the MOA.
Had either of these parties been present at the symposium they could have been edified on the context in which the severance was articulated, rather than falsely asserting that the “costs of severance to imagined workers is but a fabrication which bears no relations to facts.” I wish to assure that it was never my intention “to excite” anyone, nor do I have any reason to unnecessarily fabricate the costs of severance. The Ministry of Agriculture needs to appreciate that when the lives of 1,800 workers are at stake, it’s not an occasion for excitement, but one of solemnity.
My assumption was based on 1,500 out of 1,800 workers opting for severance, taking into consideration the provision in the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act, which at Clause 21 (4) (b) states, inter alia, “Severance or redundancy shall not apply where the employee unreasonably refuses in case of redundancy to accept an offer of re-employment by the same employer at the same place of employment or within a radius of 10 miles therefrom under no less favourable conditions than those such employee enjoyed immediately prior to the termination” [my italics]. Uitvlugt is 21 miles from the host estate, Wales; as such employees have a clear option to refuse redeployment to Uitvlugt and opt for severance. It was on this assumption, given the long distance of commuting between the 2 estates, corroborated by previous instances of redundancies where workers opted for severance as a first choice; and given the current labour establishment at Uitvlugt, that I based my estimate. At the symposium I estimated that the cost of severance for 1,500 workers based on an average 15 years of service and an average weekly income of $15,000 would be approximately $675M. Provision was made for a section of the workforce that worked for less than 15 years. Had I used the wage levels from the report of the Commission of Inquiry, the cost would have been estimated as a lot higher.
I wish to advise the MOA that taking workers from Wales to Uitvlugt comes with a significant add-on cost – the payment of a hefty daily disturbance allowance to all harvesters and some categories of field workers who will be required to commute between the 2 estates. Uitvlugt has been aggressively pursuing the conversion of its lands towards mechanized layouts with the intention of reducing its dependency on manual labour, whilst the factory’s manpower establishment is at a saturation point of 220 workers. The question is, would the Uitvlugt factory be able to absorb an additional 180 workers from Wales factory and 1,200 agriculture workers when it has 1,250 of its own, bearing in mind the land conversion that is taking place? I need not mention the approximately 300 security personnel and junior management staff from Wales. What will be their fate?
The closure of Wales cannot be associated with that of the LBI factory, since the distance between LBI and Enmore, where the factory workers were deployed, is 9 miles. In this instance, the company did not entertain any option for severance, because the distance was within a 10 mile radius, and the opportunity of staffing the Packaging Plant prevailed at the time.
Editor, the referred article stated at length the many engagements between management and workers/unions and cane farmers. When the symposium was held at MHT, and which was well attended by cane farmers and workers, not a single attendee from these categories spoke of any engagement between them and management; as a matter of fact they criticized the lack of engagement. It is obvious therefore that those engagements which the MOA referred to must have taken place after the symposium was held. However, the engagements with the workers that the MOA said had involved the “leadership” of the unions have been met with denial by GAWU, which in a Stabroek News report on February 11 “has criticized its exclusion from the meetings”. The MOA further stated that the second meeting with the farmers “was most cordial and constructive.” Unfortunately, the article captioned ‘Belle Vue cane farmers not optimistic about the future’ does not vindicate the MOA’s sentiments. The farmers of this cooperative, who constitute 10% of the entire cane-farming block at Wales, said they “don’t believe that taking canes across the coast to the Uitvlugt estate is feasible.” Further, “skepticism has already been expressed by farmers as to whether this is feasible or affordable.”
I wish to assure the MOA that my participation at the symposium was never intended to denounce the intention to close Wales estate, but was simply to open an opportunity to intelligently debate the socio-economic implications of the closure, the funding and viability of any agricultural diversification activity, and the development of a sound communications strategy to deal with the imminent closure. Having served the company for over 35 years, I was really taken aback by the apparent sarcastic statement, “Sadly, this coming from a former Human Resources Director of GuySuCo”! Had the MOA and/or GuySuCo attended the symposium, they would have seen the wisdom for inclusivity in dealing with the most contentious issue the sugar industry is currently facing in modern history. Sadly, they did not attend.
Yours faithfully,
Jai Petam
Former Human Resources
Director GuySuCo
