Closure of Wales Estate saga…Guysuco highlights salary implications given new court battle

May 10, 2016 News

---

Owing to implications of an interim injunction which was granted against the Guyana Sugar Corporation

Inc (GuySuCo) last Friday, the Corporation is contending that the development will possibly affect GuySuCo’s commitment to pay the workers of the Wales Estate severance, by the end of this week.
Justices William Ramlal and Diana Insanally in the Full Court of the High Court had granted the interim injunction against GuySuCo on behalf of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) and the National Association of Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE).
Earlier this year, GuySuco had moved to close the Wales Estate due to nonperformance but the unions have been adamant that the estate should not be closed, especially without proper consultation with them.
The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union (GAWU) and National Association of Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Employees, (NAACIE) secured an order from the Full Court against Guyana Sugar Corporation, (GuySuCo) on Friday to bring a halt to the sending home and reassignment of more than 100 workers of the Wales Estate.
In the Affidavit in support of the motion, the Unions outlined that they met with Guysuco on January 20, last, at La Bonne Intention Estate, East Coast Demerara, where they were informed of among other things, the Corporation’s decision to close the operations at Wales Estate, WBD.
The Unions said that Guysuco later informed them that in due course a new venture will be established at the Wales Estate in lieu of sugar cultivation and production; the names of the workers of the Wales Estate, who will be re-deployed to Uitvlugt Estate, West Coast Demerara; and the names of those who shall be rendered unnecessary.

However the corporation, in a statement to the press yesterday noted that it is yet to receive any communiqué regarding the court proceedings.
‘As of to date, May 9, 2016, the corporation has not been served with any legal documents that was before the Court, or the Order that was granted by the Judges.”
The corporation has also contended that meetings were held with the Unions and based on their request, specific information relevant to the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act (TESPA) was sent to the Unions in various correspondences.
“Additionally, the unions were informed that they would be provided with relevant information about the new venture at Wales Estate by October, 2016 and this information was also disseminated to the press.”
“The Corporation would like to state that this new development, could possibly affect its commitment to pay the workers from the Wales Estate severance, by the end of this week,” the release added.
The motions were filed on April 11, last, on behalf of Seepaul Narine, General Secretary of GAWU, and Kenneth Joseph, General Secretary of NAACIE.
The parties, through their attorneys, Anil Nandlall, Euclin Gomes, Sase Gunraj, Manoj Narayan and Sasha Mahadeo, are also seeking damages of more than $1 million for breach of statutory duty under the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act, Cap.99:08, Laws of Guyana.
The interim order was granted by Justice William Ramlal and Justice Diana Insanally.
The judges outlined that if the respondent/defendant, by your officers, servants and/or agents, neglect to obey the order they will be liable to process of execution for the purpose of compelling them to obey.
According to the document, by March 22, 2016, the Chief Industrial Relations Manager of GuySuCo sent letters informing GAWU of the names of the employees, who have opted for unemployment in accordance with the provisions of the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act 1997.
NAACIE, however had not received any such or similar correspondence.
On April 6, 2016, the Unions in an effort to stop GuySuCo filed an Ex-Parte application via an affidavit for interim injunction.  The application was heard by the Madam Justice Roxanne George, April 6, 2016, but she refused the application on the grounds that it did not disclose any urgency.
But the Unions are maintaining that the course of conduct embarked upon by the respondent is in flagrant violation and contravention of section 12 (3) (b) of the Termination of the Employment and Severance Pay Act Cap. 99:08, which mandates the respondent (GuySuCo) to consult with the union before any such or similar decision can be lawfully made.
The Unions are contending that, “When the Trades Unions are excluded from this process, the workers are not receiving the best available option, terms and conditions.”
“Unless restrained by this Honourable Court, the respondent will continue to treat with the workers without any consultation whatsoever with their Trade Union.”

---

---