Chief Education Officer (CEO), Saddam Hussain admitted under oath today that he has no records of “negotiations” taking place between the Ministry of Education and the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) as he took the witness box for a second day in the case brought against the Government, over its alleged failure to engage the Union in Collective Bargaining resulting in a nationwide teachers’ strike. 

While being cross-examined by both the Attorney for the Teachers’ Union – Darren Wade, and Counsel for the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, the Chief Education Officer repeatedly failed to point the court to documents that would confirm that negotiation between the two sides took place on the Union’s multi-year agreement for the period 2019-2023. 

During the initial stage of today’s hearing before Justice Sandil Kissoon, Wade questioned Hussain on whether there was really any negotiation taking place between the Union and the Education Ministry. 

In response, Hussain told the Court that negotiations on the proposed agreement took place. However, they were not recorded in the minutes of the meetings presented to the Court. 

“I do not agree that there was no negotiations, it was not recorded,” he said in defence of the State’s contention that negotiations on the proposed agreements had commenced, and were ongoing at the time of the February 5 strike that spanned for more than four weeks. 

The State has been contending that not only were there discussions on aspects of the multi-year agreement, but that since 2020 it has been acting on a number of those proposals. 

One such proposal is incentives for teachers who upgraded their qualifications. In 2023, it was announced that teachers, who hold a Master’s Degree would get a monthly allowance of $20,000 while those with a doctorate would receive $30,0000. 

But Hussain, when asked by Wade, whether the Education Ministry had consulted the Union on the matter before proceeding with the announced figures, responded in the negative.

Wade submitted, and Hussain agreed, that in the case of teachers with Masters’ Degree, the Union had proposed $25,000, and that the allowances issued were unilaterally done by the Government, as he established the Union’s case that many of the things reportedly acted upon were not done a result of any negotiation. 

But the Chief Education Officer maintained that negotiations took place. In an attempt to support his position, he pointed the court to at least 10 documents – all agendas for meetings – dating back to November 2020 to as recent as June 2023, when specific aspects of the proposal such as de-bunching, the housing revolving fund and scholarships, were listed for discussion. 

But as he wrapped up his line of questioning, Wade submitted to Hussain that agendas of meetings, would not be an indication that the discussions or negotiations actually took place. But Hussain said he did not agree. 

Picking up where Wade left off, Senior Counsel Forde grilled the Chief Education Officer on whether the Education Ministry had submitted in writing its counter proposal to the Teachers’ Union or a list of all the items reportedly acted upon by the Education Ministry. In response, the CEO told the Court there was “no written response.” 

Relying on a letter sent to the Education Ministry by the General Secretary of the Teachers’ Union, Coretta McDonald, Forde submitted to the Court that as of December 31, 2023, the Government had not submitted a counter proposal to the Union. 

Hussain admitted then that he had nothing to show that a counter-proposal was sent. 

Further, putting a series of questions to the Chief Education Officer on the very documents he submitted to the Court, Forde submitted that of December 31, 2021 negotiations on the multi-year agreement had not commenced. 

He pointed Hussain to documents dated March 11, 2021, July 30, 2021 and December 31, 2021 when the Union, through its President Mark Lyte enquired about a possible date for the commencement of negotiations on the proposal. 

But Hussain again maintained that negotiation had commenced, but “it was not recorded.”

He, however, could not point the Court to a document that would confirm that the Education Ministry had invited the Union to a meeting to commence negotiation. 

His cross-examination is expected to continue tomorrow at 10 before Justice Kissoon. 

Related posts:

GTU seeks order mandating Government to engage in collective bargaining for period 2019-2023 Minutes of meeting show 2019 – 2023 salary issue to be discussed at next GTU and Education Ministry meeting Chief Education Officer Saddam Hussain rescinds “don’t pay” memo after cited for obstructing the administration of justice GTU writes Chief Labour Officer to begin process of Conciliation over delayed salary negotiations