High Court orders govt to produce records of salary talks with teachers’ union

Last Updated on Tuesday, 19 March 2024, 15:37 by Denis Chabrol

High Court Judge, Sandil Kissoon on Tuesday ordered the Ministry of Education’s Chief Executive Officer, Saddam Hussain to produce proof that financial matters had been discussed with the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) between 2019 and February 5, 2024.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall undertook to provide the documents to the GTU’s lawyer, Darren Wade and lawyer for the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), Roysdale Forde by midnight Tuesday.

The parties return to court on Wednesday for what is expected to be a lengthy cross-examination process in the substantive matter on whether striking teachers should be paid, whether the government was right to stop deducting and remitting union dues and if there was collective bargaining on salaries.

Before issuing that order, Justice Kissoon invited Mr Wade to withdraw a Notice of Application because the court has no jurisdiction. That was done but Attorney General Anil Nandlall did not seek court costs from the teachers’ union.

Specifically, the High Court asked that “all documentary evidence, supporting agenda and minutes of meetings” between 2020 and February 5, 2024 for the Chief Education Officer to prove  the allegation and assertion on the claim in his affidavit in answer that financial matters had been the subject of discussions between the parties.

The agreement arising from the court-mandated mediation was also entered into before the parties.

In asking Mr Wade to withdraw the Notice of Application, Judge Kissoon said the alleged failure by the Ministry of Education to comply with the mediation agreement had to be addressed through contempt proceedings, not by way of a Notice of Application.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall told the court that the GTU’s Notice of Application was an abuse of process and frivolous.

Mr Nandlall also objected to the GTU’s request, saying that both parties should have their records and they should go in the witness box for cross-examination.

After lengthy deliberations between Mr Wade and the judge, Senior Counsel Forde clarified, based on GTU President Dr Mark Lyte’s position, that the “the union is saying they don’t have minutes that cover financial matters.”

Outside the courtroom, Mr Forde said “these documents are critical for the resolution of the issues” and that salary increases accompanying the Chief Education Officer’s affidavit had been unilaterally imposed and goes directly to the legality and justification of the strike. He said that would logically follow on the question of “whether teachers can and ought to be paid for the period when they are on strike.”

The Attorney General said based on convention and his learning of the law is that the two witnesses are cross-examined based on what they had said under oath so that the court could reconcile the differences. He took issue with the High Court’s decision to order the Chief Education Officer to produce records to prove its case. “The applicant is saying what the respondent is saying is not true but the respondent now has to come and prove what he is saying is the truth. Maybe new law, new process but let’s see how it turns out,” he said. Mr Nandlall said both the GTU and the Ministry of Education have the same documents that were signed and exchanged by both sides.

Mr Nandlall acknowledged that collective bargaining is a right but is not limited only to wages and salaries. “Both sides, under the Constitution-both union and an employer- both sides are entitled to collective bargaining. That’s the settled law in this country. The law is not in dispute,” he said.

Attorney-at-Law Wade said the union had denied that there was any collective bargaining or discussion in relation to benefits for the teachers. He said the union was instead contending that meetings had instead dealt with policies and classroom issues rather than benefits for teachers. “You are saying that this transpired; provide the evidence,” he said.