Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 177, June 1978

Case No 890 (Guyana) - Complaint date: 15-SEP-77 - Closed

1. 139. The complaint of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers' Union is contained in a telegram dated 15 September 1977. The complainants supplied additional information by communications dated 7 September and 11, 19 and 31 October 1977. These communications were transmitted to the Government as and when they were received. The Government transmitted observations in a letter dated 17 October 1977.
2. 140. Guyana has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Allegations of the complainants

1. 141. The complainants stated that they had to call a strike in the sugar industry as from 24 August 1977 to enforce payment to some 20,000 workers of their share in the profits for the years 1974, 1975 and 1976. This benefit had been institutionalised in 1968 by a Commission of Inquiry presided over by a High Court judge, and the rate of benefit had been altered by another judicial body in 1975. The complainants pointed out that the majority of sugar workers were engaged on a job-rated basis and did not as a rule obtain full employment. The industry was nationalised in May 1976.
2. 142. The price of sugar having risen sharply in 1974, continued the GAWU, the Government had imposed by legislation a levy on the export price of sugar based on a formula which took no account of the increase in the cost of production. In 1974, the workers were paid 7.9 million Guyanese dollars as their profit share; they received nothing in 1975 and 1976, as the industry informed them that there was no profit. In 1975 an arbitration tribunal recognised that there was a difficulty and suggested a variation of the levy which, according to the complainants, had the effect of cheating the workers as it was based on figures in Guyanese dollars which remained constant notwithstanding the rise in the cost of production.
3. 143. The GAWU explained that there were four unions in the sugar industry, including the GAWU itself, which was recognised in December 1975 after a poll. These four organisations had submitted a memorandum urging that 50 per cent of the revenue from the new levy go towards the adjustment of sugar workers' wages; this request was ignored. When it was admitted as an affiliate to the Guyana Trades Union Congress (TUC) at the Conference of 1976, the GAWU put forward a resolution recommending the abolition of the levy. This resolution was amended to call for the adjustment of the levy to enable the workers to receive a profit share calculated on the pre-levy basis. In March the complainants were prepared to take industrial action, but were persuaded to wait in order to hold discussions through the TUC with the industry and with the Government. These discussions came to nought. Finally, the GAWU gave 72 hours' notice under the terms of the existing agreement of its intention to take industrial action; the strike began on 24 August 1977, and was immediately branded as political by the undertaking. On 26 August the TUC was invited to meet the Government, which recommended a profit share from 1 January 1977 omitting any benefit for the years 1974-76.
4. 144. The GAWU also explained - in the documentary material attached to its communications - that it had been accused of failure to submit a memorandum to the Committee set up to examine the accuracy of the 1974 payout. It declared that its position had been, and still was, that a limited inquiry by a one-man Committee was incapable of ascertaining the accuracy of the company's books. It therefore insisted that a Committee under the Commission of Inquiry Ordinance should be set up instead. The Minister of Labour continued to insist on the existing Committee and intimated that he had documents proving that there was a further payout to go to sugar workers as part of the 1974 profit share. But the Minister failed to produce the figures when requested to do so.
5. 145. On 25 August, continued the complainants, a meeting of Parliament was hastily convened to pass into law Part 2 of the National Security Act, which empowered the security forces to institute preventive detention and to impose a curfew. These provisions, adopted on 1 September 1977, also provided for restrictions on freedom of movement, the declaration of a curfew in specified areas and the use of all necessary force by the military in curfew areas. At the same sitting, the Summary Jurisdiction Act was amended so that persons convicted on summary trial who lodge an appeal are no longer automatically released pending the outcome of the appeal; they may be refused bail by a magistrate. The Administration thus now had the means of holding militants in jail regardless of the merit of their appeals. These measures were rushed through Parliament in one sitting, in contravention of the standing orders and without affording any time for public discussion.
6. 146. The complainants stated that 18,000 sugar workers had taken part in the strike against the Guyana Sugar Corporation (Guysuco), and claimed that the workers were subjected to harassment and intimidation. It mentioned the names of 51 persons allegedly arrested on charges of intimidation, arson, disorderly behaviour, throwing missiles and unlawful assembly. In addition, 53 workers were detained by the police for more than 24 hours without being charged. After being released they were told to report to various police stations for several days as investigations were still going on. At least two persons were detained on three different occasions before being charged. Bail had been excessive and conditional, continued the GAWU, while trial was being postponed regularly. In the case of similar charges against other persons who were not sugar workers, bail was very small, the trial was held expeditiously and the fine was nominal. In some cases when sugar workers appeared before a magistrate, they were told that the charges would be dropped should they agree to return to work.
7. 147. The GAWU further alleged that requests for permission to hold public meetings had been refused "in the public interest", although at none of the meetings organised by the union had there been any incidents whatsoever such as to cause the police to stop the meetings, nor had anyone been injured or charged.
8. 148. The Government also embarked, according to the complainants, on a campaign to break the strike. It called in the police, the army and paramilitary forces as well as civil servants, employees of government corporations and a large number of unemployed youths (some under 14 years of age) to cut and transport sugar cane. Over 6,000 "scabs" were recruited and made permanent employees; normally in the sugar industry workers are engaged on a casual basis and have to qualify for three consecutive crops before they are given permanency (over 3,000 workers are still employed on this basis). The Corporation refused to withdraw the "scabs" to facilitate normal resumption of work, and it was claimed that the Government had directed the Corporation to give permanent employment to all workers who reported for work at this time.
9. 149. The complainants added that the Government had complete control of imports of oil and the supply of rice and staple foods for the working class. Through administrative manipulation it was alleged to have directed the distribution of these supplies away from the sugar estate areas. Strike relief in the form of foodstuffs was said to have been seized by the police and impounded at a police station (since 1 October 1977), on the pretext that the goods were stolen; the police refused to release them despite the efforts of the union, which submitted receipts. In addition, alleged the GAWU, the union's car had been seized by the police on two occasions (1 September and 13 October 1977) on the pretext that it was not roadworthy.
10. 150. The GAWU added that because the majority of sugar workers, through historical development, were Indo-Guyanese, and the majority of civil servants and the security forces were Afro-Guyanese, the strike-breaking campaign had developed racial implications which threatened the unity of the working class. Many saw it as a campaign inspired by fear of working class unity which had been growing over the past three years. Sugar workers were also being blamed for wrecking the country's economy, "destabilisation", sabotage and all the ills of society. In its telegram of 31 October 1977, the complainants claimed that the strike was continuing because the Government refused to act and deemed the strike to be political.

B. The Government's reply

1. 151. The Government began by stating that the GAWU was a duly registered trade union and the recognised bargaining agent for most of the field and factory workers in the sugar industry in Guyana. The sugar industry was nationalised on 26 May 1976 and its assets vested in Guysuco. The Government went on to explain in detail that the GAWU was closely connected with (and controlled by) an opposition political faction called the People's Progressive Party (PPP), and that the leadership of the union and of the political faction was the same. It added that the PPP had been out of governmental power since 1964 and its political influence had been waning ever since. From July 1973 until May 1976 it boycotted Parliament and tried to organise a campaign of "civil disobedience". This tactic failed and the party then decided to offer the Government "critical support"; talks initiated with the governing party proved fruitless. In July 1977 the PPP proposed that the Government should share power with it, but this proposal was rejected. Immediately afterwards, leading members of the PPP and of the union publicly declared that the party had the power to cripple the economy and would do so if its "national front" proposal was not accepted. One of the PPP's leaders was said to have declared on 12 October 1977 that the strike was not only for profit-sharing but to achieve power.
2. 152. The reason given by the complainants for the strike, added the Government, was the fact that the workers had not received a profit share for the years 1975 and 1976 and were short paid for 1974. However, the union and the PPP had given completely different reasons at public meetings and in the press, claiming that the strike had been directed against the Sugar Levy Act of 1974. In other words, the strike had not been directed against Guysuco or against any matter over which Guysuco had control, but had been called to challenge the right of Parliament to pass legislation, the intention being to coerce the Government and Parliament. The Union and the PPP, continued the Government, claimed that if an export levy had not been imposed on sugar (to deploy into public revenue part of the unusually high prices enjoyed by sugar on the world market in 1974 and 1975), the former owners would have made "super profits", and consequently a greater quantum of benefits would have accrued to sugar workers by way of profit-sharing. They quantified this benefit at 215 million Guyanese dollars (85 million US dollars), and claimed this enormous amount from Guysuco, without disclosing how they had arrived at this figure. Their claim was based on the thesis that all the profits generated by the nationalised sugar industry belonged to the sugar workers. The Government emphatically rejected this thesis; while sugar workers were entitled to reasonable remuneration, the profits of the industry belonged to the people and must be utilised for the benefit of all the people. The magnitude of the claim was such, according to the Government, that it was impossible for any responsible union to advance such a claim, and this provided cogent evidence of an ulterior motive. Neither the industry nor the Government had the financial ability to pay such a sum. ,
3. 153. In 1974, continued the Government, the former owners paid out 8 million Guyanese dollars in accordance with the profit-sharing agreement. As the PPP claimed that this sum was insufficient, the Government arranged for an arbitration tribunal to be set up under the law to investigate and adjudicate on this issue. A Judge of the Court of Appeal was appointed sole arbitrator. The tribunal held its first formal session on 20 July 1976, both the union and the former owners being represented. In accordance with the legal procedures, the arbitrator requested that the union submit a memorandum setting out its case; the union undertook to do so within two months. It had not yet submitted any memorandum, nor had it informed the tribunal whether or not it had abandoned its claim. Legally, there was still a tribunal in existence to adjudicate on this claim;
4. 154. As concerns the claims relating to 1975 and the period up to 25 May 1976, the Government stated that Guysuco had supplied the union, on the directions of the Government, with all financial and other relevant information which it had in its possession relating to the operations of the former owners during these periods, to enable the union to prepare its case against the former owners. This had been the first time in the history of the sugar industry that the industry had voluntarily furnished such information to a trade union. To date the union had not done anything under its collective agreement with the former owners and had not invoked the available procedures under the law to pursue its claim against them. In any case, the Government pointed out, any claim with respect to the period prior to 25 May 1976 could not legally be made against Guysuco, which was not a legal entity before that date and was not the successor in title to the former owners. Such claims were enforceable only against the former owners (who maintained representatives in Guyana and still remained a legal entity there); their liability was expressly preserved by the Government in the nationalisation agreement.
5. 155. As concerns the claims relating to the period from 26 May to 31 December 1976, Guysuco had supplied the union, on the directions of the Government, with all financial and other information relating to its operations for this seven-month period. According to the Government, the figures revealed that the profits earned did not reach the level permitting the profit-sharing formula to be applied. The Government added that it was open to the union to pursue a claim either under its collective agreement or under the labour laws, but it had not done so to date. Moreover, the union was a member of a special TUC team which negotiated and amicably settled a new minimum wage agreement with the Government for all workers in the public sector (including sugar workers). This agreement brought substantial benefits to these workers and was signed on 23 August 1977; it specifically provided in article 6 that the TUC and its affiliates would do everything within their power to ensure full production and increased productivity in all sectors and areas of activity. Immediately afterwards the union called its members out on strike.
6. 156. For all these reasons, the Government was of the opinion that the strike had been motivated by political rather than industrial considerations. It further pointed out that the GAWU had served a strike ultimatum on the Prime Minister. The Government also observed that there existed a collective agreement between Guysuco and the union for the avoidance and settlement of disputes; this agreement, countersigned by the Ministry of Labour, set out procedures for dealing with industrial disputes; it was still in force. Ignoring this agreement, on 20 August 1977, the union served a strike ultimatum on Guysuco. The TUC requested the union to suspend strike action for 24 hours to give the TUC an opportunity to study the issues and use its good offices for conciliation purposes. The union ignored this request. The Government emphasised that it had done everything within its administrative and legal competence to enable the union to pursue its claim within the framework of accepted industrial procedures and practice under the law. The GAWU had intransigently refused to adopt accepted industrial relations norms or to make use of the provisions of the law.
7. 157. The Government explained the normal procedures for settling industrial disputes (also provided for in the collective agreement between the union and Guysuco): the first step involved discussions with the employers; if these failed, then the parties should invite the ministry to conciliate; if its efforts failed, then the parties should go to arbitration. Arbitration proceedings were of a judicial nature and the awards were binding.
8. 158. The Government declared that it had a duty to protect the nation and the economy from disaster. It explained at length that the sugar industry was of critical importance to the economy of Guyana which, moreover, in 1977, was in a precarious economic position for reasons enumerated by the Government. When unemployment was already unacceptably high, continued the Government, it could not allow the employment security of workers and the economy in general to be put in jeopardy by reckless, politically-inspired action. The Government stressed the lack of support for the strike in responsible trade union circles and the repugnance with which they regard the manipulation of a trade union by a political faction for political ends. The workers in the industry who were not covered by the union but who were also entitled to a share in the profits had not come out on strike; of a labour force of 21,981 workers, 10,550 had continued working in the normal way. The Government mentioned several trade unions and other associations which had condemned the strike. The TUC had not supported it; it had deplored the precipitation with which it was called, recognised the political motives underlying it and demanded that it be brought to an end.
9. 159. Many sugar workers in the field category had also refused to strike. In these circumstances, added the Government, it had deployed 370 members of the People's Army to support these workers; this number was a minuscule and represented a mere 1.4 per cent of the labour force. The Army was normally involved in the economic development of the country. At the same time a large number of citizens (from all walks of life) and organisations (including trade unions) had volunteered to help in harvesting the crop and thus save the country from economic ruin. Most trade unions had refused to instruct their members not to volunteer, and some had been active in persuading them to do so. In fact, the majority of the volunteers were unionised workers.
10. 160. The Government refuted the charge that "scabs" had been recruited. Many workers never went on strike at all, and many had returned to work. Guysuco had been recruiting workers in the normal way according to the traditional practice in the industry at harvesting time. The average additional recruitment during this period amounts to 4,189, bringing the total labour force to 26,000. In 1977, the industry engaged 6,132 additional workers, of whom 5,084 had worked in the industry in the past, leaving 1,048 "new" workers. According to the Government their employment could in no way jeopardise the jobs of the striking workers or of any other workers in the sugar industry; because of the steady decline in the agricultural labour force, the industry had always had difficulty in maintaining a sufficiently large labour force, and, furthermore, Guysuco had been expanding and diversifying its agricultural activities and had assured the TUC that there was work for all. The latter had conceded that Guysuco had been guilty of no impropriety. It was likewise untrue, according to the Government, that it had recruited youths of under 14 years of age; under the law such youths had to be at school (which was free).
11. 161. The Government went on to state that when the PPP had sensed that the strike call was likely to be ineffective, it introduced into the Sugar Belt a large number of thugs who began threatening, assaulting and otherwise intimidating workers who wanted to exercise their legal right to work. The families of these workers had also been subjected to intimidation; their homes were stoned, and in some instances attempts were made to burn their homes. In addition, burning of young sugar-canes became frequent, as well as of canes belonging to small peasant farmers and cooperative societies. Other acts of sabotage were attempted against sugar factories, machinery, vehicles and other property in the Sugar Belt. The leadership of the PPP and the union added fuel to this dangerous situation by wild incitements to violence. The situation, if allowed to remain unchecked, was in danger of degenerating into complete lawlessness. Having regard to the history of the PPP (the Government cites numerous inflammatory statements made in 1973 by,-: leaders of this party), the Government had no alternative, it added, but to act promptly to assume the necessary powers to maintain the peace and protect life and property. Since the strike began similar violent statements had been made by leaders of the party and the union; these statements were now being studied by the Director of Public Prosecutions and might be the subject of indictments.
12. 162. The Government stated that all legislation and administrative action taken since the strike started had conformed strictly with the Constitution and with the laws of Guyana. The courts were the guardians of the Constitution and of the legal rights flowing there from, with which all citizens were endowed. Any citizen who was aggrieved by any action of the Government had a right of recourse to the courts for legal redress. The Constitution entrenched the independence of the courts, which were not susceptible to government or political interference or direction.
13. 163. The Government confirmed that it had reactivated Part 2 of the National Security Act, as provided for under the Constitution of Guyana. In its opinion the security situation was sufficiently grave to justify this course of action, which was taken to protect life and property and enable citizens to go about their lawful occasions. Although the National Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act of 1977 gave the security forces wide powers to ensure public peace, the Government pointed out, no person had been detained under this Act, and no curfew had been imposed; it had assumed these powers as a precautionary measure to deter further acts of violence and intimidation and to prevent a dangerous situation from degenerating. The fact that the situation had so far been contained was a vindication, in the opinion of the Government, of the measures it had taken.
14. 164. According to the Government, the reference to the amendment of the Summary Jurisdiction Act was irrelevant. The amendment was in no way connected with the strike but was designed to correct an anomalous situation: for merely, if a person was convicted on summary trial and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he went free automatically on giving notice of appeal and complying with certain formalities, whereas if he was convicted at Assizes he did not go free unless he made a special application to a judge. The position between persons convicted on summary trial and at Assizes had now been equated. Contrary to the allegations, declared the Government, a person imprisoned on summary conviction had a right to apply for bail and could do so again and again, notwithstanding prior refusals, and moreover he had a right of appeal on the issue of bail.
15. 165. The Government stated that the police had arrested and charged 130 persons for various offences ranging from intimidation and assault to wounding and arson. The regular labour force on the sugar estates numbered 21,981 (26,000 at the peak of harvesting); these incidents had occurred on several estates extending over a distance of more than 200 miles, and police records showed that most of the persons charged with offences were not striking workers or union members, but paid political activists of the PPP. The courts had disposed of 13 cases, resulting in three convictions and ten acquittals, these acquittals being largely on the ground of the non-appearance of vital police witnesses.
16. 166. The Government further refuted the allegation that there was a danger of racial conflict. In its opinion such an allegation was typical of the racialist politics of the PPP. It was significant in this connection that over 50 per cent of the citizens who had volunteered to reap the sugar harvest without pay were of Indian origin.
17. 167. The Government rejected the remaining allegations of the complainants in particular those relating to food supplies to sugar estate areas. Although there were some state-owned distribution outlets, the vast majority were in private ownership, particularly in these areas.
18. 168. The Government added that the union had now requested the TUC to negotiate with Guysuco terms for the resumption of work. The TUC had accepted the task and, given a genuine desire on the part of the union to bring the strike to an end, there was now no good reason why this should not happen as early as possible. In conclusion, the Government reaffirmed its adherence to the ILO Conventions to which it had subscribed, as well as acknowledging the right of workers to strike; however, industrial relations could not be allowed to deteriorate to a point where the very existence of the country was threatened. The Government had always enjoyed the most harmonious relations with the TUC and with organised labour generally; the Government's respect for trade union rights, it pointed out in conclusion, was acknowledged by the President of the TUC in a speech he made in September 1977.

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 169. This case concerns a strike called by the complainant union in the sugar industry; the dispute arose out of the application of a profit-sharing scheme after a levy on sugar had reduced these profits or eliminated them altogether. The GAWU refers in particular to the following measures taken during the strike: the enactment of legislative provisions on national security or summary trial; the arrest of workers; the banning of public meetings; the withholding of food supplies intended as strike relief; the use of troops and other persons to replace strikers.
2. 170. The Government's version and the complainants' version of these events differ considerably. For instance, the former considers the strike to be political, mainly because, it claims, it is directed against a tax law passed by Parliament, and because the GAWU has very close links with an opposition political faction which is seeking to create tension as a means of enabling it to return to power. The Government points out that the strike has been called in an industry vital to the country's economy. In its opinion the complainant union has not complied with the procedures for the settlement of disputes provided for in the collective agreement in force. The union, for its part, claims that it gave 72 hours' notice of the strike, as required by the agreement; it states that discussions initiated earlier had come to nought. Its demand, in conformity with a resolution adopted at the TUC Conference, is that the share in the profits be calculated on the basis of the pre-levy figure. It claims that the Government is blaming the strikers for all the country's ills. The information supplied by the Government and by the complainants is equally divergent as concerns the measures taken during the strike.
3. 171. The Committee notes that the dispute which led to the strike organised by the GAWU revolves around the levy on sugar. This levy, which has wiped out the benefits derived by the workers from the profit-sharing scheme, dates back to 1974, whereas the strike broke out only in 1977 at a time of increasing dissension between the Government and the opposition political faction, whose leaders occupy senior posts in the GAWU. Although called for industrial reasons, the strike does, therefore, seem to have very strong political implications. In any case, it has not been banned, even though the Government has taken various measures with a view to breaking it as recalled in paragraph 169.
4. 172. The Committee is not called upon to express an opinion as concerns the political aspects of this dispute. As regards the industrial aspects, it notes that the levy on the price of sugar is an innovation which has had a profound effect on the profit-sharing scheme in operation in the sugar industry. Of course a government may introduce tax measures as part of its national economic policy. In the present instance the imposition of this levy has, however, resulted in a major setback to workers in the industry, whose share in the profits has been reduced to nil. An arbitration tribunal had already drawn attention to this fact in 1975, suggesting that something should be done about it. Other unions, including the TUC, have expressed the same view. In the Committee's opinion this new problem could not be resolved by means of settlement procedures of the kind provided for in the collective agreement, these being normally intended to deal with matters connected with the application of existing agreements. It was consequently necessary for negotiations to take place.
5. 173. Although talks did take place, as soon as the strike broke out the Government took a series of measures some of which might be at variance with the principles of freedom of association. In any event, the Government states that the union has now requested the TUC to negotiate with the industry terms for the resumption of work, and that, given a genuine desire on the part of the complainants to bring the strike to an end, there is now no good reason why this should not happen as early as possible. The Committee notes this information with interest. It expresses the hope that the problem will be negotiated in depth among the main parties involved and that these discussions will culminate in an agreement taking the viewpoints of the different parties fully into account.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 174. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government and of the complainant union to the considerations set forth in the preceding paragraphs and to request the Government to keep the Committee informed of developments in the industrial dispute which is the subject of the complaint.