Is GuySuCo prepared to defend its position in court?

Dear Editor,
The letter captioned “Brijwalla’s case is yet another of GuySuCo’s anti-workers’ thrust” that was published on December 16, 2016 has again demonstrated the sugar corporation’s scant regard for enlightened, prudent and open labour relations practices.
I do not wish to comment on either the merit or demerit of Dharamdeo Brijwalla’s dismissal because I do not know the facts and circumstances, but on the corporation’s stance of refusing to acquiesce to the Chief Labour Officer’s (CLO), Charles Ogle, advise to have the dismissal dispute be “adjudicated by an arbitrator”. The CLO deliberated on the said matter at conciliation as such the next stage in the procedure is arbitration.
The mere fact that notwithstanding the union being willing to proceed to arbitration, the need for the corporation to agree to this course meant that the collective labour contract between the corporation and union requires mutual consent by both parties to proceed to arbitration.
This is an obvious defect on this contract, because here is the union having had the Chief Labour Office, Charles Ogle, declaring a “deadlock” to the dispute at hand, and willing to proceed to arbitration, but the corporation as per its letter dated December 6, 2016, is refusing to have the said dispute being “considered at arbitration”.
Editor, one could only assume that the corporation would have conducted the required due diligence and critical reviews with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case before it took the decision to dismiss Brijwalla; so why is it refusing to defend its decision at arbitration if it is confident that its decision could be scrutinised at this proceeding?
Was it that Brijwalla was dismissed without due process being followed, and for the corporation to avoid scrutiny or embarrassment is to bluntly refuse to go along with the union’s choice?
The letter stated that at the meeting on September 20, 2016, Ogle after presentations by the union and corporation, recommended that the latter review its decision. It is obvious that Ogle must have informed his recommendation based on what was presented to him by both parties, and he must have recognised that the corporation’s decision was defective.
Editor, it is highly improper, and rather unethical, for the corporation to dismiss an employee, and unionised for that matter, and either hide behind a defective collective labour contract or arrogantly defying the CLO’s advice; rather than go to the full length to defend its decision.
Would GuySuCo have refused to defend its decision in the court of law if Brijwalla has taken legal recourse?

Yours faithfully,
Selwyn Narinedatt