by Svetlana Marshall

The hearing in the case brought against the Government by the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) over the alleged failure to engage in Collective Bargaining on financial matters, commenced today with the GTU’s Vice President, Julian Cambridge, maintaining that financial matters as proposed by the Union were not discussed in the statutory meetings with the Education Ministry. 

From the onset of the cross-examination by State Counsel, Darshan Ramdhani, KC, Cambridge told the Courtroom of Justice Sandil Kissoon, that from his knowledge the issue of de-bunching and transportation allowance for educators engaged in teaching practice at the Cyril Potter College of Education (CPCE) and headteachers were not addressed.

Ramdhani submitted to the Union’s Vice President that the issue of de-bunching was addressed but Cambridge responded in the negative.

“Based on my knowledge, no de-bunching has taken place,” Cambridge told the Court. 

On the issue of the allowance, Cambridge told the Court that the issue was raised “several times” with the Education Ministry during the statutory meetings, clarifying that those meetings were not part of any negotiation. 

“It was raised at statutory meetings and not part of negotiations,” Cambridge maintained. 

But the King’s Counsel not only suggested to the High Court that approximately $15.5M in transportation allowances were paid to the two categories of educators in 2023, but that Cambridge was among the beneficiaries. In making the submission, the King’s Counsel relied heavily on the Affidavit in Defense submitted by the Chief Education Officer, Saddam Hussain.   

But throughout his testimony, Cambridge maintained that he did not benefit from allowances as proposed in the Union’s multi-year agreement for the period 2019-2023. 

It was explained that while the educators including those engaged in teaching practice at CPCE and headteachers would be reimbursed funds for meetings attended, for which traveling was required, a fixed travelling allowance has not been embedded in their salaries of teachers as proposed by the Union. 

But in an attempt to support the State’s contention that financial matters were not only discussed between the two sides, but in part were addressed by the Government through the Education Ministry, the King’s Counsel turned the Court’s attention to an open letter to the nation’s teachers by the Chief Education Officer on January 31, 2024, days before they took strike action.

In that letter, which was presented to the Court, the CEO pointed out that the Teachers’ Union made a total of 41 proposals for better working conditions for teachers. According to that letter, the Education Ministry fulfilled 25 of those requests in less than three years.  Ramdhani today revised that number upward, to suggest that 30 of the issues raised were addressed by Government. He noted that of the remaining requests, two are specifically for the benefit only of GTU and GTU executive members, and two are contrary to the laws of Guyana.

However, Cambridge told the Court that while he has taken note of the CEO’s letter, he could not confirm the total number of proposals made to the Education Ministry by the Union. However, he was able to confirm that some of the items listed in the 25 items reportedly acted upon did not emanate from the multi-year-agreement proposed by the Union. 

In search of more answers, the King’s Counsel grilled Cambridge on each of the items reportedly acted upon by the Government in an attempt to determine whether they were financial or non-financial benefits for teachers.  

As he responded to the series of questions posed by the King’s Counsel, Cambridge told the Court that while teachers received salary increases in 2021, 2022 and 2023 (7%, 8% and 6.5% respectively), those increases were imposed on public servants and did not form part of any collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Education Ministry. 

Further, Cambridge disagreed with Ramdhani’s contention that duty free concessions, scholarships, issuance of promotional points to teachers, and time off given to Executive Members of the Union were financial matters. 

He, however, agreed that allowances, including transportation allowance and a housing fund for teachers, among others, were financial matters. 

Before taking his leave, Cambridge told the Court that he stands by his Affidavit that there was no movement to engage in collective bargaining by the Education Ministry and by the Government. 

Related posts:

GTU withdraws application which sought Court’s intervention in collective bargaining issue GTU seeks order mandating Government to engage in collective bargaining for period 2019-2023 Government maintains $5M subvention for GTU to assist teachers facing difficult times GTU requests Arbitration in stalled salary negotiations for teachers