High Court Judge, Sandil Kissoon, today gave the Government 24hrs to produce records of the discussions with the Guyana Teachers’ Union on the issue of collective bargaining.

The Judge made the order today after listening to arguments from the GTU’s Attorney Darren Wade and from the Attorney General Anil Nandlall on the GTU’s most recent application to the Court.

The union withdrew most of the orders it was seeking after Justice Sandil Kissoon indicated that the Court has no jurisdiction to treat with the majority of the Orders and Declarations that were being sought.

In the Application, the Union was seeking a number of Orders and Declarations, including a one to mandate the Government to engage in Collective Bargaining for the period 2019-2023, and another calling for the Chief Education Officer (CEO), Saddam Hussain and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Shannielle Hoosein-Outar to be held in contempt of Court for refusing to discuss Collective Bargaining for the period 2019-2023 in good faith.  

But Justice Sandil Kissoon noted that the Court had no jurisdiction to treat with the majority of the orders and declarations, with the exception of the one seeking the disclosure of all correspondences between the Union and the Education Ministry as it relates to the Collective Bargaining discussions. 

It was also pointed out by the High Court Judge that the Application was filed just days before the hearing of the substantive matter brought by the Union, which is scheduled to be heard from tomorrow, Wednesday, March 20, 2024.

Outside the Courtroom, the GTU’s Attorney, Darren Wade told reporters that he withdrew the Application after the Attorney General gave an undertaking to produce the requested documents, including minutes of meetings between the Union and the Education Ministry that dealt with financial matters. 

“Why was my Application withdrawn? Because the Attorney General gave an undertaking to the Court to produce the documents, and it was on that basis the Court invited me to withdraw the application on the basis of the undertaking. Which he reneged on before the Court and the Court was forced to order those documents,” Wade told reporters. 

However, while the Attorney General had initially agreed to provide the documents, he withdrew that commitment, and argued that the documents being requested by the Union were already within its possession and there was no reason for the Education Ministry to produce the same documents.

It was after much deliberation and repeated objections by the Attorney General that the High Court ordered the AG to produce all documents, including agendas and minutes of meetings between 2020 and 2024, supporting the claims made by the Chief Education Officer, Saddam Hussain in his Affidavit in Answer that financial matters were the subject of discussion between the two parties. 

 Outside the Courtroom, the Attorney General said the application filed by Wade lacked merit. 

“First of all, we must get the facts straight. Mr Darren Wade brought us here to Court in the most ridiculous application, seeking orders that could not be granted, orders that cannot be granted, orders that were improperly claimed and the whole application was misconceived from top to bottom. The court was very kind, and very, very generous to him, the court granted him leave to withdraw and discontinue the proceeding,” Minister Nandlall told reporters. 

As argued in the Courtroom, Nandlall said the State should not be made to produce documents that are already in the possession of the Union, pointing out that the Union President, Mark Lyte, when called upon in the Court today acknowledged that GTU has in its possession records of meetings held between the two sides. 

Mr Lyte, however, told the Court that the Union does not have records of meetings held that focused on the issue of salary increases as contended by the Chief Education Officer. 

“Now, there is a conflict, Mr Chief Education Officer, has alleged a particular narrative in his affidavit. The GTU is alleging a different narrative in their affidavit. So, you have two affidavits that are conflicting. In my view, and in my learning of the law, the conventional, and the legally permissible thing to do in those circumstances is that you put the two witnesses in the witness box and you cross examine them, based on what they have said under oath in an effort to reconcile the differences. A different method was chosen here today. The respondent, who has nothing to provide in the case, has been ordered to produce minutes, which we will do. But the applicant has moved this court, the applicant is asking the court for reliefs, the application has to prove its case,” the Attorney General argued.

But Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who is presenting the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) – an added party in the matter – told reporters it is important for the Education Ministry to provide the evidence to support the contention of the CEO. 

“These documents are critical in the resolution of the issues. The Government, through the Ministry of Education, is contending that a number of financial measures, which are set out in their affidavit formed part of discussions or a collaborative process of negotiation. The GTUC and the GTU, we are contending the opposite that those measures pointed out in paragraph 15 in the affidavit of Saddam Hussain are critical to the resolution of this case. It goes to the question of the legality of the strike, and all circumstances whether the strike would have been justified,” Forde explained. 

The Attorney General has been given 24 hours to produce the documents.

Related posts:

GTU seeks order mandating Government to engage in collective bargaining for period 2019-2023 Chief Education Officer Saddam Hussain rescinds “don’t pay” memo after cited for obstructing the administration of justice GPSU sees $25,000 cost of living bonus for public servants as insensitive; Renews call for collective bargaining Chief Justice dismisses PPP’s “vexatious” application to force resignation of Cabinet