CEO unable to say if ministry responded to GTU proposals
As the cross-examination of Chief Education Officer Saddam Hussain continued yesterday, he could provide no definite answers on whether the Ministry of Education had formally responded to proposals from the GTU that included an appeal for salaries talks
When the documents regarding discussions on salary matters were presented to him, Hussain’s responses revealed inconsistencies in the government’s stance on multiyear agreements and negotiations with the union.
Day three of the ongoing court matter between the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) and the Ministry of Education (MoE), commenced with the CEO being crossexamined on correspondence between the union and the government prior to the February 5 strike by teachers.
The first to be examined was a letter addressed to Permanent Secretary (PS) of the MoE Shannielle Hoosein-Outar on September 11, 2023, and signed by GTU General Secretary Coretta McDonald. In this letter, the union had outlined a proposal for consideration by the ministry, the contents of which included an appeal for salaries talks.
Hussain was crossexamined
by Guyana Trades Union Congress legal representative Roysdale Forde, who questioned the witness on whether or not he believed that the timeframe for GTU’s proposal could’ve gone on beyond the year 2023. The CEO responded in the affirmative and after further questioning admitted that he did not respond to the letter since he was only carbon-copied same.
Hussain responded in the same manner to questions pertaining to the September 21 “Request for
Concilliation” letter sent by the GTU to the Chief Labour Officer (CLO) Dhaneshwar Deonarine.
“My understanding of carbon copy is that it doesn’t require a response on my part,” he explained to the court.
Hussain further admitted that he went to the PS to discuss the contents of the letter but made no request that a letter of response be written to the union. When questioned further, under the prompting of Justice Sandil Kissoon, he also admitted that he was not aware that a response was made to the letter.
Forde then asked Hussain whether there was a response to any of the two letters that were addressed to the MoE to which he responded, “I was not copied in any so I’m not aware”.
The court also heard Hussain admitting that the GTU’s letter for conciliation and arbitration from the CLO were CC’d to him but that at the end of September 2023 there was no written communication on them from him. He also denied knowledge of any being written.
The CEO was then grilled on the part he played in issuing an open letter to the nation’s Headteachers and Teachers on January 31, alerting them that the GTU’s planned industrial action would be illegal in
nature. When he confirmed that it was he who signed the letter, Hussain was then asked if he obtained permission from ministry officials to issue the letter as well as if he had presented it to the PS before sending out same.
“Not formally,” was his response to the latter, and he added that he was not certain if either parties were aware that the letter was sent out.
Unduly
Hussain was further pressed for an explanation of the basis upon which he came to the belief that the GTU had been unduly influenced by McDonald. The GTU General Secretary is an opposition
Member of Parliament. To this, he responded that salary increases were given to teachers so he didn’t understand the reason for the strike. He further stated that he felt and still feels that the strike was political in nature.
Following up on that statement, the Senior Counsel ventured to ask Hussain if he is aware that president of the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union, Seepaul Narine is a government Member of Parliament and that from 2020 to 2023 he has led his union in strikes. Hussain answered in the