Definitive Report - REPORT_NO194, June 1979

1. 20. This case has already been examined by the Committee at its session in February 1978 when it submitted its definitive conclusions, contained in paragraphs 139 to 174 of its 177th Report which was approved by the Governing Body at its 205th Session (February-March 1978). The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers' Union (GAWU) submitted new allegations in a letter dated 9 August 1978 and additional information in a letter of 14 December 1978. The Government transmitted information concerning the case by a letter of 29 March 1978 and its observations on the new allegations by letters dated 5 October 1978 and 9 February 1979.
2. 21. Guyana has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the Case

1. 22. At its meeting in February 1978, having examined the allegations and the Government's reply, the Committee pointed out that the case referred mainly to a strike called in August 1977 by the complainant union in the sugar industry arising from a dispute over the application of a profit-sharing scheme. A levy on sugar, according to the complainant, had reduced or eliminated these profits.
2. 23. The Government considered the strike to be political, mainly because, it claimed, it was directed against a tax law passed by Parliament and because the GAWU had very close links with an opposition political faction seeking to create tension as a means of enabling it to return to power. The Government pointed out that the strike had been called in an industry vital to the country's economy. In its opinion the union had not complied with the procedures for the settlement of disputes provided for in the collective agreement in force. The union, for its part, claimed that it gave 72 hours' notice of the strike, as required by the agreement; it stated that discussions initiated earlier had come to nought. Its demand, in conformity with a resolution adopted at the Trades Union Congress (TUC) Conference, was that the share in the profits be calculated on the basis of the pre-levy figure it claimed that the Government was blaming the strikers for all the country's ills.
3. 24. The Committee noted that the levy on sugar dated back to 1974, whereas the strike broke out only in 1977 at a time of increasing dissension between the Government and the opposition, whose leaders occupy senior posts in the GAWU. Although called for industrial reasons, the strike did, therefore, seem to have very strong political implications. In any case, it had not been banned, even though the Government had taken various measures with a view to breaking it.
4. 25. The Committee was not called upon to express an opinion concerning the political aspects of this dispute. As regards the industrial aspects, it noted that the levy on the price of sugar was an innovation which had had a profound effect on the profit-sharing scheme in operation in the sugar industry. Of course - it added - a government may introduce tax measures as part of its national economic policy. In the present instance the imposition of this levy had, however, resulted in a major setback to workers in the industry, whose share in the profits had been reduced to nil. An arbitration tribunal had already drawn attention to this fact in 1975, suggesting that something should be done about it. Other unions, including the TUC, had expressed the same view. In the Committee's opinion this new problem could not have been resolved by means of settlement procedures of the kind provided for in the collective agreement, these being normally intended to deal with matters connected with the application of existing agreements. It was consequently necessary for negotiations to take place.
5. 26. Although talks did take place, as soon as the strike broke out the Government took a series of measures some of which might have been at variance with the principles of freedom of association. In any event, the Government stated that the union had eventually requested the TUC to negotiate with the industry terms for the resumption of work. The Committee expressed the hope that the problem would be negotiated in depth among the main parties involved and that these discussions would culminate in an agreement taking the viewpoints of the different parties fully into account.
6. 27. At its 205th Session (February-March 1978), the Governing Body took the following decision as recommended by the Committee in paragraph 174 of its 177th Report: to draw the attention of the Government and of the complainant union to the considerations recalled in the preceding paragraphs and to request the Government to keep the Committee informed of developments in the industrial dispute which was the subject of the complaint. At its meeting in May 1978, the Committee noted with interest the information provided by the Government according to which the strike had been called off as from 6 January 1978, a resumption of work had been agreed upon and the situation in the sugar industry had then returned to normal.

B. Further allegations of the complainant

1. 28. In its communication dated 9 August 1978, the complainant alleges that permanent workers who had participated in the strike were victimised by being denied out-of-crop employment; that scabs recruited during the strike were given permanent employment in the industry where there was already a surplus of workers; that new workers were being employed and given regular employment while thousands of workers with over 20 years' service were being denied employment.
2. 29. In its communication of 14 December 1978, the complainant gives further details regarding these allegations stating that during the strike 6,132 scabs were recruited contrary to an agreement between the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GUYSUCO) and the union which only allows those persons who have been qualified to be made permanent workers. The complainant indicates that the work week was curtailed unduly. Moreover, although a 1975 judicial tribunal award (amended in 1977) set, inter alia, a criterion of previous employment for three crops as qualification for out-of-crop employment and benefits, the complainant alleges that GUYSUCO has offered employment to workers who do not meet this requirement. The complainant claims that the Government's position, confirmed by GUYSUCO, was that there was enough work for the regular employees both during the crop and in the out-of-crop season, as well as for the workers recruited while the strike was on. However, it claims that permanent employees who went on strike are reduced to the status of casuals, have lost the qualification mentioned above and are denied out-of-crop benefits and employment, whereas those recruited during the strike have been given out-of-crop employment. Thus it claims that the workers are forced into a state of beggary which will continue because these employees will not be able to qualify for the next out-of-crop season. The complainant further alleges that since the end of the strike it has on several occasions tried without success to have discussions "on the issue of the general strike".

C. The Government's reply

1. 30. In its letter of 5 October 1978, the Government denies that permanent workers who participated in the strike were victimised by being denied out-of-crop employment. It states that GUYSUCO adhered to the usual commitment of non-victimisation upon settlement of a strike and indicates that no case of nor.-adherence to the criteria for out-of-crop benefits has been brought to its or GUYSUCO's attention by the GAWU. It points out that economic difficulties, financial constraints in the industry and weather conditions affected out-of-crop employment and stresses that, in fact, the sugar industry has always had difficulty in maintaining a sufficiently large labour force. The Government also disputes the allegation that workers recruited during the strike were given permanent employment jeopardising the jobs of striking workers because new workers are traditionally recruited during harvest time and because GUYSUCO is expanding and diversifying its agricultural activities it supplies statistics to support this assertion. The Government further states that new workers are expected to qualify from crop to crop so as to maintain permanency of employment. It states that its employment policy (called Proper Labour Placement) ensures the redeployment of surplus workers into areas of greatest need, such as the sugar industry. It denies the complainant's allegation that new persons were employed and given regular employment while thousands of workers with over twenty years' service were denied employment. The Government's employment policy allows public sector workers to maintain their permanent status when redeployed to another public sector organisation such as GUYSUCO. GUYSUCO has not employed anyone unless there has been a vacancy and has offered all its qualified permanent workers employment in the current crop.
2. 31. In its letter of 9 February 1979, the Government questions the existence of grounds for a complaint against it, since the matter involves relations between the GAWU and GUYSUCO, a public corporation juridically and managerially separate from the Government. The Government states that it does, however, comment on the allegations as a matter of courtesy and to evidence its cooperation. It recalls that employment availability is influenced by unpredictable factors such as weather conditions, factory stoppages due to mechanical breakdowns, machinery and equipment down-time, strikes and other forms of industrial action; it adds that there was no undue curtailment of the work week because there was a particularly high rainfall during January-June 1978 and many breakdowns (statistics are supplied). Regarding the allegation that workers have been reduced to a state of beggary, the Government declares that GUYSUCO has signed a new wage agreement with retroactive effect from 1 January 1976 and points out that sugar workers receive substantial supplementary benefits. Lastly, the Government reiterates that the GAWU is closely connected with and controlled by an opposition political faction intent on using industrial complaints in its political campaign in this election year in Guyana.

D. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 32. In a number of earlier cases' the Committee has taken the view that it could not reopen a case which it has already examined in substance and in which it has submitted final recommendations to the Governing Body except where new evidence is adduced and brought to its notice. In this case, the complainant alleges new facts arising out of the previous dispute.
2. 33. As in the Committee's previous examination of the case, the Government's version and complainant's version of the events differ considerably. According to the complainant's new allegations, since the end of the strike called by the GAWU in the sugar industry, the management has resorted to victimisation against the workers who had striked by denying them out-of-crop employment, to favouritism towards workers recruited during the strike and other new employees, and to deliberate reduction in the work available. They also claim that efforts by the union to hold discussions on the matter which brought about the strike have not been successful. The Government supplies information indicating, in particular, that work is available without discrimination against those who had participated in the strike. It denies that a deliberate reduction in the work had been imposed and points out that no complaint of anti-union discrimination has been brought to its or to the management's attention.
3. 34. In the past the Committee has recalled that the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association had stressed the importance of providing expeditious, inexpensive and wholly impartial means of redressing grievances caused by acts of anti-union discrimination; it had drawn attention to the desirability of settling grievances wherever possible by discussion without treating the process of determining grievances as a form of litigation, but, concluded the Commission, in cases where there will be honest differences of opinion or viewpoint, resort should be had to impartial tribunals or individuals representing the final step of the grievance procedure.
4. 35. The Committee recalls that in the previous examination of the present case the Government explained the normal procedures for settling industrial disputes, which were also provided for in the collective agreement between the union and GUYSUCO. As regards the substance of the new allegations presented by the complainant, the Committee wishes to point out that reprisals against workers for their trade union activities would be contrary to the principles of freedom of association. Subject to recalling the importance of this principle, but noting the information furnished by the Government according to which employment has been provided to the workers concerned without discrimination and no complaint of anti-union discrimination has been brought to the attention of the Government or of the management, the Committee considers that these allegations do not call for further examination on its part.