GTU challenge: Judge to rule on legality of teachers’ salaries, union fees deduction on April 19

Next week, the High Court will be handing down its decision on the legal proceedings filed by the Guyana Teachers Union (GTU), which is seeking to reverse Government’s decision to cut the pay of those teachers who were on a five-week strike as well as the move to stop deducting dues from teachers’ salaries and remitting it to the union.

This was after presiding judge, Justice Sandil Kissoon, heard submissions on Wednesday from the lawyers representing the GTU (applicant), the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) and the Attorney General (Respondent).
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, S.C., contended that union’s case is “incurably defective”, arguing that with the changes made in 1980, 1996 and 2001, Guyana’s constitution only caters for the “freedom to strike” and not the “right to strike” hence teachers cannot be paid for the five-weeks period that they did not show up for work.
However, Attorney Darren Wade for the GTU and Roysdale Forde, S.C., for the GTUC maintained that the ‘no work, no pay’ policy did not apply in this instance since Government failed to engage the union in collective bargaining thus creating the conditions for industrial actions to be taken.
Forde pointed to the Constitution of Guyana at Article 147 (2) and (3) which fundamentally allow for the freedom to strike. This, he insisted, is supported by international conventions that caters for the right to strike.

Completely rejected
But this concept was completely rejected by AG Nandlall.
“The Constitution has a right to demonstrate, a right to assembly but a freedom to strike. The draftsman used different language to portray a different concept… So, how can you advocate that you have a right to pay when you have not worked because if you are to be paid for services not rendered then you are compelling the employer to give you his property for which he has not received no compensation and no reward…”
“Secondly, wages is defined in the Labour Act. It is monies paid for work done or to be done… So, how can you not do work and expect to get paid. I also examined other parts of the Constitution which they relied upon to show that no international treaty that we have signed at the ILO (International Labour Organization) or anywhere else has conferred a right on a work to get paid for work not done during a strike period,” Nandlall contended.
He was at the time speaking with reporters after the court hearing during which the Attorney General further proffered that any other position could have far-reaching consequences in the future.
“Ruling that a worker is entitled to salary and wages when they have not performed the work will have serious implications in this country and in every part of the world… You heard Mr Forde [citing cases from] India and the judge tell him that is not the position in India… There is no country that has a law that says workers can get paid for work undone,” he posited.
According to the AG, it is within the Terms of Resumption that would usually stipulate whether the employer would agree to pay workers for the time on strike but this is not a decision that is imposed on the employer.
Meanwhile, on the issue of the deduction of union dues from teachers’ salary, Nandlall argued that this is a voluntary service offered by the government as a policy matter, and the separation of powers does not allow the court to review this decision.
“The voluntary service of the government is offering this facility to the union is not grounded in contract or is not grounded law. It is the government, as part of its policy, has decided to extend this service to the union, voluntarily. And anything that is voluntarily done can be terminated voluntarily and the decision to do so is an executive decision… The Court cannot enquire into matters that are purely executive matters. These are beyond judicial review,” the Attorney General explained.
Nevertheless, in highlighting the unions’ defective case, Nandlall contended that there is no relief in the pleadings filed by the unions that seek to get money for the striking teachers or even speak to the collective bargaining process.
But the AG believes that Guyana’s collective bargaining structure, which mirrors most laws in the Caribbean, is adequate in that it has all the protective mechanisms in place.
Wednesday’s hearing for submissions followed a court-ordered mediation process between the Education Ministry and the GTU, which ended in deadlock last month.
In court documents filed by the union in February 2024, it was noted that only non-financial matters were discussed with the Education Ministry regarding its multi-year proposal for the period 2019-2023 that was submitted to Government in September 2020.
But during cross-examination at a hearing last month, GTU’s Vice President, Julian Cambridge, admitted that several areas including duty-free concessions, housing revolving fund, and debunching of salaries according to scales, and the granting of scholarships for teachers that would eventually result in increased salaries were all financial matters that were discussed between the Government and the Union.
In another application, the GTU had approached the High Court asking for the court, among other things, to order the Government to negotiate salary increases for teachers for the period 2019 to 2023. But Justice Kissoon ruled last that the court has no such jurisdiction.
The union also wants the court to order the Government to engage in collective bargaining for salaries for 2019 to 2023.
The Union had also asked the court that Chief Education Officer Saddam Hussain and Education Ministry Permanent Secretary Shannielle Hoosein-Outar be held in contempt of court, for “unwillingness and bad faith for refusing to discuss collective bargaining for the period 2019-2023”.
Government had responded with a responding application to strike out that application filed by the Union.
Meanwhile, Justice Kissoon will be delivering his ruling on April 19 at 09:30h at the High Court. (G8)