The factory workers of Blairmont Estate resumed their protest actions on the afternoon of October 21 after the GuySuCo failed to budge and rather chose to ignore their valid and principled concerns regarding the breakdown of the system regarding promotions at the estate. This morning (October 22), the workers continued their protest as they staged a picketing exercise calling on the Corporation to recognize what clearly is a discriminatory approach by the sugar company. The workers, like the GAWU, are also peeved about the several inaccuracies the Corporation outlined in its statement of October 18.
Aspects of the statement which appeared in the October 19 Stabroek News were examined, very closely and carefully, by the Union and we were disheartened to note several inaccurate and glaringly misguided contentions and sentiments. It, undoubtedly, has caused us to be worried whether incorrect information was provided to those who authoured the statement or whether it is the Corporation is engaged in a campaign of misinformation. We hope it is the former and not the latter. The Union while eager to correct the obvious incorrect sentiments of the Corporation refrained from any reply until we engaged the GuySuCo yesterday (October 21). The engagement, we felt, would have allowed clarity on the matters the Corporation raised in its statement. The engagement between the Union and the Corporation could be described in many ways, but successful was not one of them.
GuySuCo statement begins by announcing that the worker was “…a skilled tradesman and upon his confirmation, was appointed to a Class1 in the Factory”. From the statement, it gives the impression that the worker was employed at the Class 1 level and was merely confirmed seeking to indicate that nothing was wrong. But this is far from the truth. GuySuCo officials, during our engagement, after a series of confabulating and confounding explanations, confirmed that the worker was employed as a Class 2 worker and later confirmed in that post. It obviously, at the outset, brings the Corporation’s contentions into serious doubt.
The Corporation, in trying valiantly to denounce the workers actions, has missed, clearly, the workers concern. The Blairmont factory workers, contrary to the GuySuCo missive and expressions at yesterday’s meeting, were not, in anyway, averse to the worker who was promoted. This sentiment they had expressed to many senior GuySuCo officials based at Blairmont, yet the Corporation communicated to the public an obvious untruth. The GAWU reiterated that position yet again yesterday. The workers and the Union have pointed out that their concern related to what appears to be a breakdown in the system regarding promotions at the estate. We feel, quite rightly, that the system, in place for many years, should be adhered to at all times. Certainly, the workers concern was genuine, appropriate and germane and those were factors have been ignored by the Corporation’s authorities.
Of course the workers anxieties grew after conflicting information was provided regarding the issue. At one time, they were informed the worker being promoted was recently tested and qualified for promotion. When the Corporation was asked to share the date and results of the test, another explanation was offered wherein the worker in question has been tested some years ago and those results were the basis of the promotion. Our Union during the engagement with the GuySuCo reiterated our request to view a copy of the purported test results. The GuySuCo adamantly refused, though our request was in keeping with the Recognition and the Avoidance and Settlement of Disputes Agreement in place since February, 1976. The workers also pointed out that the Corporation would usually advertise such opportunities for promotion to allow interested, qualified, workers to apply. In this case, the workers shared, this wasn’t done which further served to upset them. In fact during a visit to the factory by Union officials yesterday, we observed a dated notice informing of a vacancy of the estate. We should add that the Collective Labour Agreement between the Union and the sugar company, explicitly requires that appropriate vacancy notices be placed in prominent points to bring awareness of vacancies to the workers. This, from all appearances, was disregarded in this case.
Moreover and interestingly, when the Union arrived at Blairmont for yesterday’s meeting we saw posted a notice asking interested workers to submit applications to be tested for the purposes of promotion. This notice is dated October 15 after the workers protest commenced. Of importance too, is that the GuySuCo personnel manual sets out, without ambiguity, the process regarding promotion of workers. The relevant section of the manual, written solely and wholly by the Corporation, it appears, was not adhered to. When the Union put this to the Corporation representatives, the Union was told, astonishingly, that the Company’s Executive has a right to veto the policy. It brings into question the usefulness of this and any other policy and agreement if it can be ignored and altered at the whims and fancies of those who are charged with upholding them. It seems, the Corporation is taking a cue from its shareholder which, in recent times, has been disregarding and undermining several Constitutional provisions.
GuySuCo, in its statement, claimed that no worker had expressed interest. This again has been refuted by the workers. In fact, the Union has learnt from the workers, that there has been an application by a worker made some two years ago and they were seven workers in the estate’s employ who could be deemed as suitable candidates. We should add that the worker who applied, did not see his application treated with as he was told there was no vacancy. Of course, it is not a stretch for that application to be kept on record in the event of a vacancy which, it seems, had arisen. The Blairmont management when confronted with this contention, during the course of the workers protest last week, said it had no application on record though GuySuCo’s statement spoke to three (3) applications being on file. The workers who applied, of course, had faith in the Corporation’s system and had, obviously, rational and realistic expectations that the system was proper and accurate. They unfortunately did not keep copies of the application forms submitted. This trust has not been clearly shattered and undermined greatly.
The Corporation statement, nevertheless, referred to only applications for electricians seeking promotion. This again is different from what was told to the workers last week. Moreover, the workers informed the GAWU that earlier this year, officials of the estate engaged approximately eight workers regarding their applications for promotion. The GuySuCo also complains that a request to the Union’s Field Officer regarding workers interested in promotion remains unfulfilled. This again is not correct as the Field Officer had submitted a list of interested workers. An official of GuySuCo, in a conversation with the Union, disclosed that a list of approximately twenty workers was shared with the Management. That conversation, we should add, took place long before the Corporation’s statement was issued.
The GuySuCo also criticizes, it seems, the involvement of the Union central officers. Such criticism, we contend, has no basis and is now associated with the outlandish new GuySuCo. Our Union apart from its duty bound obligation to the workers, recognizes the workers valid and principled concern. It seems the Corporation is seeking that our Union to ignore the concerns of our members. The GuySuCo is well aware of our proud history and standing with and for the workers. We are in no way going to change our long standing and proudly held principles which have served us well now in the past and present and, undoubtedly, in the future too. We also accused of dividing the workers. This again is another falsehood being peddled by the state-owned sugar company. Our Union has encouraged and promoted the togetherness of workers recognizing the value of standing together in winning our just demands for respect and betterment. Indeed, if any division is to take place it will only be the consequence of the discriminatory policy of the Administration.
We also want to tell the Corporation we are not averse to the re-employment of any redundant sugar workers bearing in mind the hardships they and their family face. Of course, at the same time, we contend the hardship that now stalk the communities and people of the shuttered estates is a policy which should have never been pursued in the first place. The difficulties of 2019 were forewarned yet in clear ignorance to those valid concerns the Corporation was a main cheerleader calling and advocating, at all costs, the closure of estates. Those plans and the accompanying hardships spawned, we should not fail to recall, were devised many years ago by a now former CEO of the Corporation and received the support of the listening ears of those who comprise the now-a-day caretaker Administration. Today, the GuySuCo should not behave like a saint and seeking to promote itself as a voice of reason.
The GAWU/GuySuCo engagement ended with the Corporation maintaining that it would not alter its decision regarding the promotion though this goes clearly and blatantly against the established procedure and practice. The Corporation nevertheless is requesting that all interested workers apply to be tested to be promoted. When this was communicated to the workers they were upset and incensed. They failed to recognize how the Corporation, on one hand, could seemingly accept that a wrong was perpetuated but yet, on the other, unwilling to right the wrong.
The engagement, in our view, took an unsavory turn after the Corporation began what appears to be an attack on shop stewards. One of the four shop stewards of the factory who was temporarily transferred to the factory and was properly appointed by the Union was told in no uncertain terms during the course of the meeting that he would be sent back to his substantive job. This approach, it seems, is connected to the shop steward’s leadership during the workers protest. In fact, incredulously, a GuySuCo representative told the shop steward to come prepared to return to his substantive job today. The Union strenuously and vociferously objected to this pointing out that the GAWU has the right, in keeping with the extant agreement, to appoint shop stewards irregardless of their status. The Union maintains and contends that the attempt to dictate the appointment regarding shop stewards by the Corporation cannot be condoned nor upheld.
The GAWU wants to assure that it is not daunted nor will it abandon its ideals and objectives. We are dismayed with the Corporation misinformed statement and expressions. The GuySuCo, by its unfortunate stance, is serving to affect its production drive which should be accelerating at this time. The GAWU, nevertheless, remains hopeful that the Corporation could come to its senses and do what is right.
At this time, the GAWU must remind that the 1976 Recognition and Avoidance and Settlement of Disputes Agreement require the Union and the Corporation to refrain from using “…written and spoken word of a nature likely to engender prejudice or resentment against the other by means of groundless or useless criticism or allegation”. We urge the Corporation to bear this in mind and in practice. Moreover, the upholding of equitable treatment and social justice cannot be underscored as these important tenets it seems are being disregarded and ignored.
