Page navigation
Bauxite Union responds to Ethnic Relations Commission’s claims
Press Statement
Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union
February 8, 2010
Bauxite Union responds to Ethnic Relations Commission’s claims
The Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union responds to the Ethnic Relations Commission’s (ERC) statements carried in Stabroek News, Feb 8, 2010 titled “Ethnic relations body calls bauxite union’s statement ‘mischievous.’” http:/
The Union stands by the statement made in its Press Release, Feb. 4, 2010 that “While it awaits a response from the ERC’s Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Yvonne Langevine, for the modalities and scheduled timing to commence a public inquiry that is ‘transparent and impartial’ the Chairman, Mr. Juan Edghill, has in the meanwhile visited the mines and interviewed workers.” This statement is corroborated with the ERC’s admittance that its’ Chairman, Juan Edghill, “held preliminary meetings with unionized workers.” It is this very admittance of an engagement with the “unionized workers” at the Bauxite Company Guyana Inc. that the Union expressed concerned about and made it known that it “sees Mr. Edghill’s action as operating outside his scope and legal responsibility since the legality /illegality of a strike is not within the ERC’s mandate [and] the complaint was made by the Union, not the workers, and as such Mr. Edghill should be respectful of the procedures and principles of engagement in such relationship.”
The Jan 4 2010 complaint filed by the Union requested a public inquiry into discrimination meted out to Bauxite Company Guyana Inc (BCGI) employees and the GB&GWU based on race and political geography. Since the union requested a public enquiry, any engagement by the ERC with unionized workers at the BCGI is a departure from the Union’s complaint. In the first instance the complaint was made by the Union not the workers, and second instance the Union requested a public inquiry that is transparent and impartial. Thus far these are yet to be honoured by the ERC. The Union expects the ERC to respect the Union as the workers’ representative consistent with its recognition under the Trade Union Recognition Act.
On the other hand it is surprising to learn the ERC inaction thus far to proceed with a public inquiry is dependent on a letter that stating that “Mr. Carlton Sinclair is authorized to make a complaint on behalf of the Union.” The Jan. 4, 2010 complaint made by the Union was signed by Carlton Sinclair, GB&GWU Branch President, Aroaima/Kwakawani Mines Operation. The team that made the presentation to the ERC on Jan 8, 2010 included Carlton Sinclair whom the ERC team met face -to -face. On Jan 13, 2010 the ERC team met Carlton Sinclair who hand delivered a letter to them signed by him. In short Carlton Sinclair is no stranger to the ERC, neither is his role in the complaint. Notwithstanding the facts, the Union dispatched a letter today to Ms. Yvonne Langevine, conforming authorization of Carlton Sinclair ( a copy attached). It is now hope that having met this ‘procedural requirement’ the ERC would proceed with the Jan. 4, 2010 complaint for a public inquiry.
It should be said that the strategy of the ERC requesting a letter from the Union in order to proceed with a matter consistent with its constitutional responsibility and having had engagement with Carlton Sinclair at all times mirror a request made by Chief Labour Officer, Mr. Yoganand Persaud, which the Union fulfilled by delivering a letter on Dec 30, 2009 and still awaits action by the Ministry to resolve the three month old dispute at BCGI. The GB&GWU has taken note of this tactic and hopes in the case of the ERC this is not another excuse for inaction.
Referencing the statement that “a team of ERC investigators revisited Linden on January 13 to take statements from persons whom the Union had said were willing to make available information for the investigation but no one showed up” Carlton Sinclair hand delivered a letter to this team which stated “Our request for a public inquiry is yet to be addressed. At this point your request to interview workers falls outside the parameters of acceptability when taken into consideration that there exist no known modality between the Union and the ERC on the way forward. It is opportune to remind the Commission that in our presentation on January 8, 2010 the Union stated ‘we will agree to participate and provide all information to support our charges in an open public inquiry.’ To do otherwise is to depart fundamentally from what we have requested. GB&GWU advises that any departure will be premised on agreement between the parties.” ( a copy of letter attached)
The fact, too, that the ERC is now saying, via the media, that “once a complaint is properly put forward to the Commission and prima facie case has been made out in keeping with its rules and procedures the Commission will proceed in an impartial and transparent manner to investigate” is unheard of. The union needs to be apprised where in the ERC standard practice a prima facie case has to be established as a pre-requisite for a public inquiry? Reference is made of the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) complaint against Dr. Kean Gibson’s book “The Cycle of Racial Oppression”. In this case a charge was made by the IAC and mechanism thereafter put in place to immediately to commence a public inquiry that allowed for the presentation of evidence by the IAC and others based on the charge. The ERC did not seek to establish a prima facie case. Similarly, the union made a charge and expects the ERC to put the mechanism in place for a public inquiry where the Union and others will have the opportunity to present their evidence based on the charge.
GB&GWU reminds the ERC that it is an independent body with a constitutional mandate and responsibility to the society. It expects now that the requested letter is submitted the Commission will move to put in place the “modalities and scheduled timing” to address its complaint with the seriousness and immediacy it deserves.
Ms. Yvonne Langevine
Chief Executive Officer
Ethnic Relations Commission
66 Peter Rose & Anira Streets,
Queenstown,
Georgetown,
Guyana
February 8, 2010
Chief Executive Officer:
Pursuant to information in Stabroek News, February 8, 2010 that the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) “is still awaiting a letter from the Union stating that Mr. Carlton Sinclair is authorized to make a complaint on behalf of the Union,” our engagements on Jan 4, 2010 and Jan 8, 2010 were premised on a written complaint made by Mr. Carlton Sinclair. But since you are saying you need a letter to conform his authority, we hereby conform. Mr. Carlton Sinclair is authorized to make a complaint on the behalf of the Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union.
Having met this requirement it is hoped that the ERC as an independent body with a constitutional mandate and responsibility to the society can now move to put in place the “modalities and scheduled timing” to address the Union’s complaint with the seriousness and immediacy it deserves. It is opportune to remind you of a letter dated January 13, 2010 wherein the union said “we will agree to participate and provide all information to support our charges in an open public inquiry. To do otherwise is to depart fundamentally from what we have requested. GB&GWU advises that any departure will be premised on agreement between the parties.”
The fact that the ERC is now saying, via the media, that “once a complaint is properly put forward to the Commission and prima facie case has been made out in keeping with its rules and procedures the Commission will proceed in an impartial and transparent manner to investigate” is unheard of. The union needs to be apprised where in the ERC standard practice a prima facie case has to be established as a pre-requisite for a public inquiry? Reference is made of the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) complaint against Dr. Kean Gibson’s book “The Cycle of Racial Oppression”. In this case a charge was made by the IAC and mechanism thereafter put in place to immediately to commence a public inquiry that allowed for the presentation of evidence by the IAC and others based on the charge. The ERC did not seek to establish a prima facie case. Similarly, the union made a charge and expects the ERC to put the mechanism in place for a public inquiry where the Union and others will have the opportunity to present their evidence based on the charge.
It should also be noted there was no agreement between the Union and Commission that the Chairman would go to Kwakwani and Aroaima and interrogate workers. A public inquiry is distinct from what is being conducted by the Chairman who is involved in engaging persons who did not make the complaint, or as yet has the requisite forum to present evidence, one way, or the other. The union reiterates its call for a public inquiry and wishes to advice that a team headed by the Chairman visiting the worksites does not constitute such an inquiry. It is therefore expected that an agreed mechanism be put in place to facilitate such a hearing where the Union can provide its information.
Given the gravity of the situation we await your response soonest as to how we proceed.
Sincerely,
Leslie Gonsalves
General Secretary (ag)
GB&GWU
Ms. Yvonne Langevine
Chief Executive Officer
Ethnic Relations Commission
66 Peter Rose & Anira Streets,
Queenstown,
Georgetown,
Guyana
January 13, 2010
Chief Executive Officer:
While the Guyana Bauxite &General Workers Union (GB&GWU) observes the efforts being made by the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) to meet to discuss our complaint submitted to you on January 4, 2010. Our request for a public inquiry is yet to be addressed. At this point your request to interview workers falls outside the parameters of acceptability when taken into consideration that there exist no known modality between the Union and the ERC on the way forward.
It is opportune to remind the Commission that in our presentation on January 8, 2010 the Union stated “we will agree to participate and provide all information to support our charges in an open public inquiry.” To do otherwise is to depart fundamentally from what we have requested.
GB&GWU advises that any departure will be premised on agreement between the parties. But in the absence of that agreement and official acknowledgment of the January 4, 2010 complaint the process of soliciting statements from the persons who we are representing indicates an intent in subverting our call for a transparent process.
We reiterate that “given the gravity of this issue the Union expects the ERC to seriously consider our position for a transparent, public and impartial inquiry.”
This letter recalls letter sent earlier.
Carlton Sinclair
Branch President
Aroaima/Kwakwani
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bauxite Union Ethnic Relations Commission Bauxite Company Guyana Inc.
Last updated 172 days ago by Guyana Bauxite and General Workers Union
