The University of Guyana Senior Staff Association and the University of Guyana Workers’ Union have refuted an accusation by the University’s Council that they distorted the outcomes of the last Council meeting in a recent public statement on what they said was the meeting’s failure to adequately address workers’ issues.
The unions, in a joint statement last Tuesday, had complained that the Council did not make any decisions on matters relating to workers during the meeting, and that their concerns were relegated to the bottom of the agenda. Subsequently, the Council issued a response to the union’s statement, in which it was noted that Pro-Chancellor and Council Chairman, Major General (ret’d) Joseph Singh, expressed his “regret at the course of action taken by the Unions to distort the outcomes of the Council meeting held on March 7, 2019, at which the Unions’ representative was present and participated fully in the discussions and decisions of the Council.”
Furthermore, the Council had indicated that it has been left with no option but to support a call by Vice-Chancellor Ivelaw Griffith for the impasse between the university’s administration and the workers’ unions to be referred to the Labour Ministry for conciliation.
Now, the unions have issued a response to the Council’s claim of misrepresentation, and have “strongly” refuted the accusation.
In a detailed press release issued on Sunday, the unions presented a table addressing the points made by the Council, alongside points made in their own press release and included relevant commentary.
“As the table…shows, the points made in the Council’s press release either do not address those made in our release, or are new points unrelated to those made in our release… You will note that we make some points that are not addressed in the release – namely the Pro- Chancellor’s role in setting the agenda for the meeting and also in chairing it. The Council’s release also makes some points that we do not make in our release because of our specific focus on the matters that were of greatest concern to staff,” the unions stated.
“The Council’s release also refers to a statement from the Vice Chancellor about conciliation. Since the Unions had not yet received that communication from the Vice Chancellor at the time when the release was sent, we can only say that we will respond to it when we do receive it. We have sent two emails to the Vice Chancellor regarding negotiations, and we are waiting for his responses,” they stated further.
In the Council’s statement, it had noted that the Vice-Chancellor (VC), immediately after the meeting, issued an invitation for the leaders of the unions to meet with him on Friday, March 8. Furthermore, it was stated that the VC indicated his preference for the impasse to be referred to the Ministry of Labour for conciliation and that “the Council, now recognizing that the facilitating role it has initiated has not met with the desired response from the Unions, has no option but to acknowledge and support the decision by the Vice- Chancellor and his Administration to return to the Ministry of Labour’s conciliation process.”
“…We are not aware of any communication from the Vice Chancellor stating that the administration is returning to conciliation. We must also state that the Unions are represented on Council by their nominee, Dr Jewel Thomas, and Dr Thomas was not consulted by any means (email, telephone, or in person) before this email went out in the name of Council,” the Unions noted.
The release further noted that the Council did not address its point that the matters relating to workers were left for last on the agenda, with “Any Other Business” being the only other agenda item to follow. They stated that the Council also did not address the point that no decision was made on the forensic audit they have called for, nor did they respond to the unions’ request to have a special subcommittee set up to deal with human resources issues at the university.
In relation to the Council’s statement that “in spite of the absence of a quorum”, a brief discussion was held on the contents of a letter received from the unions on January 30, and that some of the issues were substantially discussed as part of other agenda items, the unions stated: “The Unions’ release does not misrepresent what occurred. The Council members could not direct the Pro-Chancellor to act, but our press release reflects that it was suggested that he forward the letter to Finance and General Purposes Committee. However, we question which other parts of our letter were substantially discussed as other agenda items – unless the release is referring to the Vice Chancellor’s contract renewal.”
As for the issue of the contract renewal, the Unions said they will be addressing that in separate press releases.
