Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 332, Noviembre 2003

1. 691. The Committee examined this case at its May-June 2003 meeting [see 331st Report, paras. 416-447, approved by the Governing Body at its 287th Session (June 2003)].
2. 692. The GPSU sent additional allegations in a communication dated 2 September 2003. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 9 July and 13 August 2003.
3. 693. Guyana has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 694. In its previous examination of the case in June 2003, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 331st Report, para. 447]:
2. […]
3. (b) The Committee recalls that in general, agreements should be binding on the parties and requests the Government to supply it with a copy of the court ruling on the enforceability of the 1999 Memorandum of Agreement as soon as it becomes available, so that it may reach a conclusion on this aspect of the case in full possession of all the relevant information.
4. […]
5. (d) The Committee requests the parties to provide sufficiently detailed information on the content of the 1976 Agency Shop Agreement and the legal grounds for its denunciation and to transmit a copy of the court ruling on this issue as soon as it becomes available, so that it may reach a conclusion on this aspect of the case in full possession of all the relevant information.
6. (e) The Committee requests the parties to indicate whether the introduction of a requirement for written authorization of the deduction of trade union dues is a measure of general application or an individual decision limited to the GPSU. If the measure is an individual decision, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures as soon as possible with a view to ending such situation of discrimination and interference, and to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to ensure that in the future, the introduction of measures affecting trade union rights is preceded by full and frank consultations with all trade unions concerned.
7. (f) The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures as soon as possible with a view to ensuring the full implementation of the High Court’s decision ordering the reinstatement of seven GPSU officers and members who have been dismissed from the High Court Registry on anti-union grounds and the payment of outstanding wages, and to keep it informed in this respect.
8. (g) The Committee requests the Government to supply it with a copy of the court ruling on the dismissal of GPSU officers and members in other branches of the public sector, and if the court finds that the dismissals were on anti-union grounds, to take all necessary measures with a view to the reinstatement of the dismissed trade union officers and members and the payment of outstanding wages, and to keep it informed in this respect.
9. (h) The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures as soon as possible so that allegations of anti-union discrimination in the High Court Registry are investigated by an independent body and if the allegations are confirmed, to ensure that such acts cease immediately and that appropriate remedies are adopted. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.
10. (i) The Committee notes that the issue of the certification of the majority union in the Guyana Forestry Commission is currently pending before the courts and requests the Government to supply it with a copy of the court ruling as soon as it becomes available, so that it may reach a conclusion on this aspect of the case in full possession of all the relevant information.
11. (j) The Committee requests the complainants to specify the acts by which fire workers are allegedly coerced to join an association other than a trade union, the type of association promoted and in what way it affects the freedom of association of fire workers. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the court ruling as soon as it becomes available so that it may reach a conclusion on this aspect of the case in full knowledge of all relevant facts.
12. (k) The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the Guyana Energy Authority initiates consultations with the GPSU as the certified majority union and to keep it informed in this respect.
13. B. The complainants’ additional allegations
14. 695. In a communication dated 2 September 2003, the complainants provide additional information pursuant to requests made by the Committee during the previous examination of the case.
15. Withdrawal of facilities
16. 696. The GPSU attaches a copy of the 1976 Memorandum of Agreement between the Public Service Ministry and the GPSU concerning the check-off of agency fees according to which new entrants into the public service who opt not to be members of the GPSU, shall pay an amount equivalent to trade union dues as agency fees (clauses 1 and 3). The Permanent Secretary/Head of Department shall furnish the GPSU with a monthly return of employees together with a statement of the monthly remittance of agency fees and a separate statement on monthly remittance of union dues (clause 5). The GPSU shall furnish duly audited annual statements concerning the agency fees received (clause 8). The Agreement shall take effect as of 1 March 1976 and continue in force unless terminated by the giving of not less than 90 days notice by either party (clause 11). Agency fee facilities are granted on condition that the Agreement is observed (clause 14).
17. 697. The GPSU alleges that to date, the Government has not forwarded to the GPSU the names of newly recruited employees opting to pay agency fees as required by the Agreement, thus preventing the GPSU from accurately determining how much of the money received represented union dues and how much came from agency fees. The non-provision of information had been a constant source of problems with members who claimed that they had never opted to pay agency fees and that they thought that they were paying union dues as members of the union entitled to all membership benefits including hospitalization, dental, optical, funeral and other benefits. Thus, in 1987 Rule 3(b) of the GPSU was unanimously amended by adding: “Provided that persons recruited into the public sector […] in areas falling within the bargaining units of the Guyana Public Service Union, shall automatically become members upon their recruitment, unless they exercise the option of not becoming members at the time of their recruitment, whereupon they are required to pay to the union the equivalent of union dues as agency fees […].” According to the GPSU, although this amendment was registered in accordance with the Trade Union Act, the Public Service Ministry refused to recognize the new rule. The GPSU also states that although it submitted membership forms and authorizations for the deduction of trade union dues in accordance with Rule Q4 of the Public Service Rules, the relevant ministries and departments continued to make deductions as agency fees instead of trade union dues.
18. 698. The GPSU adds that the Government blocked the union’s total income twice, in 1988 and 2000, claiming breaches of the Agency Shop Agreement, so as to suffocate the union financially. In 1988 the matter was settled out of court and the Government restored all deductions and advanced adequate funds to the union to meet its outstanding commitments. In 2000 the Government again accused the GPSU of breaches of the Agreement, but this time its main goal was to block the check-off of union dues, a facility which existed since 1954 and which was the source of approximately 85 per cent of the union’s income. According to the GPSU, the check-off of union dues is applicable to all public service unions and is today the norm in all collective agreements. Both the check-off rule and the Agency Shop Agreement are legally binding under the Labour Act since they are standing rules that have been maintained under the revised Public Service Rules of 1987. Moreover, deductions were made from an employee’s salary based on signed authorizations as in signing an application for membership, GPSU members authorized unequivocally the deduction of union dues.
19. 699. The GPSU adds that the Government started harassing it after a 57-day strike, which lasted from 29 April to 23 June 1999 and ended with an arbitral award granting salary increases to public sector employees. By Circular No. 7/1999 of 25 November 1999, the regional executive officer of region No. 9 informed the staff that a decision had been taken by the GPSU to increase the rate of union dues and agency fees consequent to the arbitral award. The regional executive officer then states: “Employees who subsequently object to the increase being deducted from their salaries should be required to record their objections, in writing, to their accounting officers.” According to the GPSU, this form of harassment continued for several years disrupting its relationship with the members whose contributions remained smaller than the payable sum. Another action to destabilize the union was taken by the Minister of Public Service who issued on 10 August 2000 a press release assuring all public sector employees that even if they did not pay trade union dues, the Government would extend to them all benefits deriving from successful trade union representation. The press release also emphasized that “employees should be aware of their fundamental right […] to choose to which trade union they should or should not belong”.
20. 700. The GPSU adds that on 8 April 1999 the Government served a 90-day notice to terminate the Agency Shop Agreement because of the alleged non-compliance by the union with clause 8 concerning the audit of annual statements. The GPSU sought the intervention of the auditor-general who issued two reports dated 14 March 2000 and 29 July 2002, in which it is indicated that the audited financial statements of the GPSU presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the GPSU as at December 2001. The GPSU further alleges that although it initiated conciliation proceedings with the Minister of Labour, the Government discontinued the deduction of trade union dues as of 7 June 2000, i.e., the day after a conciliation meeting was held in accordance with the Agreement for the avoidance and settlement of disputes which is legally binding on both parties.
21. 701. The GPSU adds that it took the matter to the High Court. However, notwithstanding the fact that the parties had agreed to the full reinstatement of union dues, and that agency fees would continue to be deducted and be held in an escrow account, the Chief Justice ruled on 21 July 2000 that union dues would be deducted from a future date, in August 2000, and that agency fees would be discontinued until further determination. The GPSU lodged an appeal against the High Court ruling. Parallel to the appeal, the GPSU members rapidly and fearlessly responded to the GPSU’s call for the resubmission of membership forms and authorizations so as to access its main source of income, i.e., trade union dues. According to the GPSU, this positive display of solidarity and commitment led to further actions to undermine the union through delays in processing authorizations and in paying deducted dues over to the union, as well as the removal of financial records from the union’s premises without authorization and subsequent accusations that the union did not have vouchers for expenditure (some of the documents, which were apparently removed by the audit staff, were subsequently recovered in the Ministry of Finance).
22. Pressure to quit the union
23. 702. With regard to the Guyana Fire Service, the GPSU states that in May 2002, the newly appointed Minister of Home Affairs, instructed the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry to cease the deduction of union dues from firemen, after several failed attempts by the Minister to coerce firemen to set up an association which would replace the GPSU, because in his view, the fire service could not be unionized. Pursuant to resolutions by firemen rejecting the Minister’s interference, protest letters by the GPSU and efforts to seek the intervention of the Minister of Public Service, the GPSU eventually took the Minister of Home Affairs and the Permanent Secretary to court. Although this case was fixed for hearing on 15 November 2002, it was postponed due to a circular by the Chief Justice recalling all cases due to a reorganization of the registry. The GPSU claims that the circular aimed at preventing the hearing of the specific case which has not been reassigned since then.
24. C. The Government’s new observations
25. 703. In communications dated 9 July and 13 August 2003, the Government provides its observations on a number of issues raised during the last examination of this case.
26. Refusal to implement an agreement on arbitration
27. 704. With regard to the allegation of refusal to implement the Memorandum of Agreement, which ended a 57-day strike in 1999 and which provided for arbitration on future disputes over salaries and wages in the public sector, the Government states that it is important to give an account of the events that led to the Agreement. According to the Government, the GPSU unleashed a campaign of terror and intimidation during a strike over wage claims in March-June 1999. Gates of ministries and other government offices were chained by the strikers in collaboration with criminal and opposition elements. Persons who wanted to work were beaten. Bombs and molotov cocktails were thrown at government offices. Citizens were beaten and robbed. The commercial sector was grinding to a halt as “strikers” marched and invaded stores. It was in this tense situation that the Agreement was signed. The Government attaches copies of news reports published in one newspaper on this issue. The Government requests the Committee to pronounce itself on whether the above acts are permitted during a strike and whether agreements reached under such conditions are acceptable.
28. 705. As to allegations made by the complainants that it has been difficult to establish a working relationship with the new ruling party since it came to power in 1992, the Government responds that historically, the GPSU has only called strikes when the currently ruling party has been in office and never went on strike while the previous regime was in power, despite anti-worker legislation adopted during that time.
29. Withdrawal of facilities
30. 706. With regard to allegations concerning the unilateral termination of the check-off facilities, the Government refutes the allegation that it is seeking to destroy the financial base of the GPSU. The Government attaches the text of the High Court ruling of 21 July 2000, which orders the deduction of trade union dues upon submission of authorization. The Government states that it complies with the ruling by making deductions based on the check-off system. On the contrary, the GPSU has not observed the requirement for written authorization which is contained in Rule Q4 of the Public Service Rules and which applies to both the public and private sectors for the lawful deduction of trade union dues.
31. 707. With regard to allegations concerning the unilateral termination of the Agency Shop Agreement, the Government attaches a copy of the 1976 Memorandum of Agreement between the Public Service Ministry and the GPSU concerning the check-off of agency fees. Concerning the legal grounds for the denunciation of this Agreement, the Government states that the Agreement could be deemed to be in breach of the Labour Act which provides that no employer shall impose any condition as to the place at which, or the manner in which, or the person with whom, any wages or portion of wages paid or payable to an employee are to be expended. Moreover, provision for agency fees has been made only where the GPSU has bargaining rights while there is no corresponding right in the private sector.
32. 708. Moreover, the Government states that further grounds for the denunciation of the Agreement relate to certain facts which occurred in 1988. At that time, the GPSU amended Rule No. 3 so that “persons recruited […] in areas falling within the bargaining units of the Guyana Public Service Union shall automatically become members upon their recruitment, unless they exercise the option of not becoming a member. [...]”. The Government considers that this rule is in breach of Article 2 of Convention No. 87 in that no union should be allowed to force a worker to become a member. It is also in breach of article 147 of the Constitution of Guyana which provides that except with his own consent no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of assembly and association, and section 26(2) of the Trade Union Recognition Act which provides that an employer shall not make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall or shall not become a member of a trade union or shall relinquish his membership of a trade union. The Government further states that the registrar registered this amendment at the time of its adoption, but that this fact should be evaluated in the light of the dictatorial regime in place at the time, a regime of which the GPSU was an integral part, and of which the 1976 Agency Shop Agreement was a product.
33. 709. Moreover, the Government notes that the GPSU’s financial records have not been audited in the last eight years (since 1991) in clear violation of clause 8 of the Agency Shop Agreement. On 8 April 1999, the Permanent Secretary of the Pubic Service Management wrote to the union notifying them that the above violation had been brought to his attention via the auditor-general’s report/letter No. 79/TU:4/2 dated 12 March 1999 and gave the GPSU 90 days’ notice in accordance with clause 11 of the said Agreement, to terminate the Agreement. On 11 January 2000, the current Permanent Secretary wrote to the union informing them of the expiration of the 90 days’ notice and that the union continued to be in default. He appealed to the union to comply with the Agreement and gave them a further 30 days to comply.
34. 710. According to the Government, the GPSU responded that any failure on their behalf to comply with the Agreement was due to the Government’s failure to furnish accurate statements to the union concerning the deduction of agency fees and union dues. The Government indicates that in fact, the Agreement places on the Permanent Secretary/Head of Department an obligation to forward to the union information in this respect. However, the compilation and forwarding of this information is only possible in so far as the union makes available a list of members from whom union dues should be deducted and the signed authorizations to make such deductions. Therefore, the Government submits that any failure on its part to furnish accurate statements as claimed by the GPSU, was due entirely to the GPSU’s refusal to supply information on union members so that the distinction could be made as to who should pay union dues and who should pay agency fees.
35. 711. The Government adds that after several letters and meetings between the Ministry and the GPSU, the latter continued in its blatant breach of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. According to the Government, is it unfair, unethical and unjust for the union, the defaulting party, to insist that the Government continue to honour its obligations under the Agreement. Thus, when the Permanent Secretary wrote on 7 June 2000 to the union informing them that agency fees would no longer be deducted, he acted in a manner which may not be deemed unreasonable, unlawful, arbitrary, or in excess of jurisdiction.
36. 712. The Government states that the GPSU filed an application to the High Court on 5 July 2000 seeking prerogative writs of certiorari and mandamus against the Permanent Secretary of the Public Service Management. On 21 July 2000, the court delivered a judgement which authorized the deduction of union dues based on written authorization by members. No order was made as regards the deduction of agency fees, a decision which the GPSU has appealed. The Government adds that on 11 July 2000, an application was filed on behalf of two public service employees in which they sought, inter alia, a declaration that the Agency Shop Agreement of 1976 was unconstitutional and in direct violation of their fundamental rights. Any further decision by the Government as regards the 1976 Agreement has to be put on hold pending the outcome of this application. The Government asks the Committee to advise it on whether ILO Conventions permit the subjecting of an employee’s contract of employment to the conditions that he shall compulsorily contribute part of his earnings to an organization.
37. 713. Finally, the Government states that contrary to what the complainant has alleged, agency fees have not been continuously deducted since 1976. In November 1988, the previous Government had interrupted the deduction of agency fees and union dues on the ground of failure by the union to comply with the provisions of the Agreement with respect to the disbursement of funds, the maintenance of proper records, the submission of financial statements to the auditor-general, and the submission of annual statements to the registrar of trade unions. The Government recommenced the deductions in May 1989 upon promises to rectify the breaches. However, these promises were never kept and the GPSU continued to be in breach of its obligations.
38. Anti-union dismissals
39. 714. With regard to allegations of anti-union dismissals in the High Court Registry, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Guyana Forestry Commission and the MMA-ADA (William Blackman – Branch Officer, High Court Registry; Yvette Collins – Ministry of Agriculture; Leyland Paul – Branch Officer, MMA-ADA; Bridgette Crawford – Branch Officer, MMA-ADA; Barbara Moore – Guyana Forestry Commission; Karen Vansluytman – Member of the Central Executive Council and third Vice-President, High Court Registry) the Government refers first to the information already provided during the previous examination of this case, according to which the cases of Leyland Paul, Bridgette Crawford and Karen Vansluytman are currently pending before the High Court. Concerning Yvette Collins, the Government states that she was chief accountant at the Ministry of Agriculture when the police was called in to investigate a fraud. At that time, she was absent and had left the country without permission. Thus, her services were subsequently terminated. The Government adds that the relevant court ruling will be communicated to the Committee once issued. As to Barbara Moore, the Government states that her services in the Guyana Forestry Commission were terminated in the process of reorganization and attaches the termination letter which was addressed to her. According to the termination letter, Barbara Moore was informed that her services would no longer be required because it was discovered, in the context of an institutional strengthening programme, that a number of areas were overstaffed and the services of some persons would become redundant in the absence of opportunity for their relocation in the organization.
40. 715. The Government also provides the text of a High Court decision ordering the reinstatement of seven GPSU members and officers who were dismissed from the High Court Registry (Cheryl Scotland, William Blackman, Marcia Oxford, William Pyle, Yutze Thomas, Anthony Joseph, Niobe Lucius and Odetta Cadogan). The Government clarifies that the court’s order was not based on a finding that the workers were dismissed on anti-union grounds, but that the dismissals were not carried out in accordance with the applicable procedures (in particular, the registrar had no legal authority to terminate the contracts). The Government also states that the ruling has been appealed. Moreover, the GPSU officers were not the only persons whose employment was terminated in the agencies listed in the complaint. These agencies, except the High Court Registry and Ministry of Agriculture, are controlled by boards of directors.
41. Withdrawal of certification as majority union
42. 716. With regard to the certification of the majority union in the Guyana Forestry Commission, the Government states that the certification of the GPSU was never withdrawn since the union had never been certified. The Government also rejects allegations that there were attempts including dismissals to modify the bargaining unit in the Guyana Forestry Commission and invites the GPSU to produce evidence. The Government adds that the poll was called by a unanimous decision by the Trade Union Recognition and Certification Board which included as a member the acting GPSU General Secretary. The Government has no representation on the board except for the chairman who is appointed by the minister after consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. As for the fact that the President of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union is a member of Parliament sitting on the benches of the ruling party, the Government states that it is no secret that most of the political leaders in the Caribbean, including in Guyana, emerged from the trade union movement.
43. Pressure to quit the union
44. 717. With regard to alleged acts of anti-union pressure in the Guyana Energy Authority (GEA), the Government indicates that on 13 September 2002 the head of the presidential secretariat (HPS) met with the Staff of the GEA and pointed out that the GEA would be restructured for reasons of efficiency and effectiveness. Subsequently, the GEA provided the office of the HPS with information on personnel and development plans as requested. The process of restructuring of the agency is yet to be finalized.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 718. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations that the Government has been attempting to weaken the GPSU’s bargaining power through various acts, such as refusal to implement an agreement concerning arbitration over wages in the public service, denunciation of the Agency Shop Agreement, withdrawal of check-off facilities, dismissals of trade union officers and members, withdrawal of GPSU certification as majority union in the Guyana Forestry Commission, pressure on fire officers to quit the GPSU and closing down of the Guyana Energy Authority without consulting the GPSU which is the majority union.
   • Refusal to implement an agreement on arbitration
2. 719. The Committee recalls that during the previous examination of this case it had noted allegations of refusal by the Government to implement an agreement on arbitration which was negotiated in 1999 with the assistance of a mediating team in order to end a 57-day strike over wage claims and address the loss of purchasing power allegedly suffered by public employees. The Committee recalls that the Agreement provided that in the future, whenever salary and wage negotiations failed and a third party conciliation of 30 days was unsuccessful, the parties would adopt the method of arbitration set therein. The Committee also recalls that in 2000 after negotiations over salaries and wages failed, the Government contested the enforceability of the Agreement. The issue is now pending before the Courts [see 331st Report, paras. 421 and 437]. The Committee notes that in its response, the Government emphasizes that the Agreement was adopted in an environment of terror and intimidation and questions its validity. The Committee recalls that the principles of freedom of association do not protect against abuses consisting of criminal acts while exercising the right to strike and that although the holding of trade union meetings is an essential aspect of trade union rights, the organizations concerned must observe the general provisions relating to public meetings, which are applicable to all [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 598 and 140]. The Committee also stresses, however, that illegal acts should be investigated through an independent judicial inquiry with all due process safeguards and that apparently, there has been no investigation of any incidents which might have occurred during the 1999 strike.
3. 720. As to the validity of the Memorandum of Agreement, a question which is currently pending before the courts, the Committee observes that this Agreement was the outcome of negotiations conducted with the assistance of a mediating team in order to settle a dispute over wages in the public sector. The Committee notes that any challenge to this Agreement should be evaluated in the light of two principles. First, that agreements should be binding on the parties and second, that the harmonious development of labour relations would be facilitated if the public authorities, when dealing with the problems concerning the workers’ loss of purchasing power, adopted solutions which did not involve modifications of agreements without the consent of both parties [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 818 and 880]. The Committee notes that the issue of the enforceability of the 1999 Memorandum of Agreement is currently pending before the courts and trusts that in rendering a decision, full account will be taken of these principles. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress of judicial proceedings and to transmit a copy of the court ruling on this case as soon as it becomes available.
   • Withdrawal of facilities
4. 721. The Committee notes that on 8 April 1999 the Government denounced the 1976 Memorandum of Agreement concerning the check-off of agency fees. The Committee observes that beyond the specific reasons put forward for the unilateral termination of the Agreement, the examination of which is currently pending before the courts, the denunciation took place in the context of a more general policy change, favouring trade union pluralism instead of a closed shop system in the public sector. The Committee recalls that problems related to union security clauses should be resolved at the national level, in conformity with national practice and the industrial relations system in each country. In other words, both situations where union security clauses are authorized and those where these are prohibited can be considered to be in conformity with ILO principles and standards on freedom of association [see Digest, op. cit., para. 323]. Thus, the denunciation of the Agreement is not per se contrary to freedom of association principles. However, the Committee regrets that it was not preceded by consultations and emphasizes the importance that should be attached to full and frank consultation taking place on any questions or proposed legislation affecting trade union rights [see Digest, op. cit., para. 927]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure in the future that full and frank consultations take place on any questions or proposed legislation affecting trade union rights.
5. 722. The Committee notes that according to the complainants, the Government started revising its stance on the collection of trade union dues in 1999 when a 57-day strike and an arbitral award led to increases in the salaries of public employees. At that time, the regional executive officer of region No. 9 issued a circular in which the staff was notified that the GPSU had decided to increase trade union dues consequent to the salary raise, and invited any workers who objected to increases in trade union dues to place such objections on record with the auditor-general. The Committee also notes that in another press release, the Minister of Public Service indicated that employees should not feel constrained to pay increased trade union dues because in any case, the Government would extend the negotiated benefits to all of them regardless of trade union membership. The Committee considers that in keeping with the principles of freedom of association, it should be possible for collective agreements to provide for a system for the collection of union dues, without interference by the authorities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 808]. The Committee calls upon the Government to ensure the exercise of great restraint in relation to any form of interference which might occur in the context of the collection of trade union dues, and to undertake consultations with representative trade unions as soon as possible in order to consider improvements to the current check-off system through the adoption of adequate safeguards against interference. The Committee requests to be kept informed of developments in this respect.
6. 723. The Committee observes that the Government finally discontinued the check-off facility on 7 June 2000, while conciliation was pending, and that on 21 July 2000 the High Court ordered the reinstatement of the deduction of trade union dues as of August 2000, on condition of submission of authorization. The Committee notes the GPSU’s allegations that although it conformed to the court ruling by resubmitting membership forms and written authorizations to the public authorities, the latter failed to abide by the ruling by delaying and obstructing the collection and payment of trade union dues. Moreover, the Committee notes that the GPSU contests the time limits set in the ruling as a result of which trade union dues which were deducted in the months of June and July 2000 would not be reinstated, causing a financial deficit. The Committee also notes that the type of services provided by the GPSU to its members, including welfare programmes such as medical care, require a constant stream of revenue. The Committee notes that the Government’s statements contradict some of the GPSU’s allegations. In particular, the Government states that although it has been complying with the High Court ruling and making deductions of trade union dues on the basis of written authorization, the GPSU has failed to produce such authorizations. In this context, the Committee emphasizes that the withdrawal of the check-off facility, which could lead to financial difficulties for trade union organizations, is not conducive to the development of harmonious industrial relations and should therefore be avoided [see Digest, op. cit., para. 435]. With regard to the deduction of trade union dues, the Committee calls on both parties to implement the High Court ruling of July 2000 on the one hand, by providing written authorizations for the deduction of trade union dues and on the other hand, by ensuring that such deductions and their payment to the GPSU are carried out promptly and in full. The Committee also invites the Government to undertake consultations with the GPSU without delay in order to forward to the GPSU any contributions made in June and July 2000 which have been retained. The Committee requests to be kept informed of developments in this respect.
   • Anti-union dismissals
7. 724. The Committee notes that cases concerning the dismissal of 12 GPSU officers and members allegedly on anti-union grounds (Leyland Paul, Bridgette Crawford, Karen Vansluytman, Yvette Collins, Cheryl Scotland, William Blackman, Marcia Oxford, William Pyle, Yutze Thomas, Anthony Joseph, Niobe Lucius and Odetta Cadogan) are pending before the courts and expresses the hope that the judicial proceedings will be concluded soon and will shed light onto the reasons for the dismissals. If it is found that the dismissals were on anti-union grounds, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to have the trade union officers and members reinstated in their posts without loss of pay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect and to communicate the text of the decisions rendered.
8. 725. The Committee also notes that according to the Government, Barbara Moore’s services in the Guyana Forestry Commission were terminated along with those of other workers due to a reorganization. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide information as to how many workers were affected by the reorganization and the measures taken to ensure that trade union officers would be protected from acts of anti-union discrimination in this context. The Committee also notes that the termination letter addressed to Ms. Moore did not indicate the reasons for which she was selected for dismissal among other workers in her unit. The Committee recalls that acts of anti-trade union discrimination should not be authorized under the pretext of dismissals based on economic necessity [see Digest, op. cit., para. 718], and that where public servants are employed under conditions of free appointment and removal from service, the exercise of the right to freely remove public employees from their posts should in no instance be motivated by the trade union functions or activities of the persons who could be affected by such measures [see Digest, op. cit., para. 708]. The Committee requests the Government to institute an independent inquiry into the reasons for the dismissal of Barbara Moore and if it is found that the dismissal was on anti-union grounds, to take all necessary measures to ensure her reinstatement in her post without loss of pay or, if reinstatement is not possible, to ensure that she is paid adequate compensation. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.
   • Withdrawal of certification as majority union
9. 726. With regard to the withdrawal of the certification of the GPSU as majority union in the Guyana Forestry Commission the Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that technically there was no withdrawal of the GPSU’s certification since the union had never been certified, that the poll was called by the Trade Union Recognition and Certification Board following a unanimous decision by all members of the board, including the acting GPSU General Secretary, and that the Government has no representation on the board except for the chairman who is appointed after consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. The case is pending before the courts. In this regard, the Committee would like to recall that competent authorities should, in all cases, have the power to proceed to an objective verification of any claim by a union that it represents the majority of the workers in an undertaking, provided that such a claim appears to be plausible [see Digest, op. cit., para. 824]. Finally, concerning the fact that the President of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union is a member of Parliament with the ruling party, the Committee notes that according to the Government it is no secret that most of the political leaders in the Caribbean, including in Guyana, emerged from the trade union movement. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress of judicial proceedings concerning the certification of the majority trade union in the Guyana Forestry Commission and to provide it with a copy of the court ruling when it becomes available.
   • Pressure to quit the union
10. 727. The Committee notes that according to the GPSU, the Minister of Home Affairs instructed the Permanent Secretary to interrupt the check-off of trade union dues in the Guyana Fire Service in violation of the abovementioned High Court Order of July 2000. Moreover, the Minister has allegedly attempted to coerce firemen to quit the union and join an association which would replace the union because in his view, the fire service could not be unionized. In addition to this, according to the GPSU, the hearing of proceedings initiated on this issue did not take place on 15 November 2002 due to a reorganization of the court registry and has not been reassigned since then. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any observations on this issue. The Committee recalls that justice delayed is justice denied [see Digest, op. cit., para. 105], and that firemen, like all other workers, have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing in conformity with Article 2 of Convention No. 87 ratified by Guyana. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the case concerning the Guyana Fire Service is heard in court as soon as possible, and trusts that in rendering a decision on this issue, full account will be taken of Article 2 of Convention No. 87, ratified by Guyana, pursuant to which firemen, like all other workers, have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect and to transmit the court ruling when it becomes available.
11. 728. The Committee notes that in the framework of a restructuring process in the Guyana Energy Authority, the management provided the presidential secretariat with information on personnel and development plans, apparently without consulting with the GPSU which is the majority union in that unit. The Committee has emphasized that it is important that governments consult with trade union organizations to discuss the consequences of restructuring programmes on the employment and working conditions of employees [see Digest, op. cit., para. 937]. The Committee regrets that no consultations were carried out with the GPSU on the restructuring process under way in the Guyana Energy Authority and requests the Government to ensure that consultations with representative organizations take place in the future in the context of restructuring programmes.