Vice President (VP) Bharrat Jagdeo has described sections of Justice Sandil Kissoon’s ruling in the case brought against the Government by the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) as nothing short of “presumptuous.” Last week, Justice Kissoon ruled in favour of the GTU, affirming the legality of their month-long strike.
As a result of his decision, Justice Kissoon prohibited the government from acting on its decision to deduct the salaries of teachers who participated in the strike in February. Speaking at his weekly press conference held at Freedom House, the VP criticised the decision describing the outcome as defying logic and having the potential to cause chaos. “The ruling defies common sense…If a person doesn’t work and that person has the right to receive pay then who will work…We believe that this will lead to a chaos in any society,” the VP said vowing that the government will appeal the decision.
Of note, Jagdeo said he found parts of ruling particularly appalling. “I can only go by what I read in the newspaper. I asked the Attorney General for the written judgment because we need it for the appeal. It was promised by the judge. He said he has not received it but from what I see here in the newspaper; Stabroek News …‘of particular note was President Ali’s meeting with some teachers at State House which Justice Kissoon criticised as not constituting collective bargaining with a recognised union.’
“Now the President never claimed that this was collective bargaining but I think it’s presumptuous of a judge to tell the President, who he should meet and who he shouldn’t meet. This is the elected President of Guyana of the Executive branch of the government which is separate from the judiciary,” asserted Jagdeo. Jagdeo stressed that President Ali is accountable elected by the people of this country and as such, he is accountable to them.
He continued that: “For whatever reason not to have a judge; any judge for that matter tell him what he should do or he shouldn’t do and what it constitutes or not. The President never claimed it was collective bargaining.” As such, the VP said that: “It’s presumptuous’ to criticise the President. “Purely presumptuous!!”
Another issue raised by Jagdeo was what he called the “vilification of pubic officers” in the decision. Alluding to the ruling, the VP noted that the public officers cannot respond because they are fearful of being called before the court for contempt. “Now if they could have responded in kind, I’m sure they would have some choice words to say here. The vilification and misrepresentation of their role…” In his decision, Justice Kissoon had pointed to a number of instances where the government evaded engaging the Union in collective bargaining on salary matters.
According to the judge, the evidence revealed that from 2020 and the days leading up to the strike in February, “letters were sent to every conceivable person in authority” by the Union, including the President. He noted that there was no evidence of a response, with the exception of the belated letter of response by the Permanent Secretary of Education Ministry, and the Chief Labour Officer.
The judge noted, inter alia, that the letter written by Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Shannielle Hoosein-Outar dated February 6, 2024, which was addressed to the President of the GTU Dr. Mark Lyte included a number of “grave allegations of criminal nature.”
The Court noted that the said letter communicated Government’s decision to discontinue the deduction of Union dues from the salaries of teachers and contained allegations made against the General Secretary of the GTU, without any evidence. The Judge noted too that even the President’s meeting with teachers in the absence of union representatives, could not be seen as any form of collective bargaining. He said many of the decisions taken by the Government were unilateral. Additionally, in his ruling, Justice Kissoon noted that Chief Education Officer, Saddam Hussain was not “full and frank” with the Court; instead, he attempted to justify the actions of the Ministry of Education. He noted that Hussain’s evidence “bordered on tarnishing the reputation of his office, constituted a misrepresentation of the facts, and was found to be inaccurate and self-serving.” (Kaieteur News)…[+]