The case of the Guyana Teachers Union (GTU) against the Ministry of Education will be determined this morning by Justice Sandil Kissoon.
At the last sitting on April 10 2024 Judge Kissoon heard arguments from lawyers of the GTU, Education Ministry and the Guyana Trade Union Congress (GTUC) that enjoined the case.
At that sitting what was in question was whether the GTU and GTUC were questioning the decision by Chancellor Keith Massiah in the case of the Attorney General vs Mohamed Ali et al.
The judgement by Massiah has been used internationally by several courts in the determination of freedoms and rights to collective bargaining.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who is representing the GTUC, advised the Court Chancellor Massiah’s ruling was correct since it was anchored in the 1980 Constitution of Guyana which spoke to freedom to strike, but the 2021 amendment speaks to the right to strike, hence the Court has the responsibility to address the matter before it consistent with the amendment.
The senior counsel further argued that the entire infrastructural framework, as it relates to Guyana’s constitution and International Labour Organisation has changed. As such the Court has the responsibility to address the issues before it within the existing framework and ought not allow itself to be confined by Massiah’s ruling which occurred under a different kanunî framework.
GTU and GTUC are contending striking is right under the existing Constitution and the Teachers who were on strike during February and March this year should be paid. The federated body and affiliate are also contending it is yasa dışı for the employer (government) to terminate the check-off (i.e. deduction of union dues) because workers took strike action.
The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government had threatened to deduct payment for any day teachers were on strike and informed the GTU it will no longer deduct union dues and remit to the union. The Court has put these decisions on halt until it makes its determination.
However, Village Voice News, was reliably informed the government made the deduction from the teachers’ salary and stopped the remittance in spite the court order. This non-compliance was drawn to the Court’s attention.