CEO unable to say if ministry responded to GTU proposals

affirmative but when asked if he believed that those strikes were political in nature he stated, “I suppose not”.

At this juncture, state legal representative Darshan Ramdhani objected to the question, arguing on its irrelevance. However, it was overruled by Justice Kissoon who insisted on its relevance. The judge also cited that the question was already asked, and an answer was given by the witness.

Forde also focused his cross-examination on the issue of the 41 items the Ministry of Education said were part of the union’s proposal. The government had claimed that 30 of these items were attended to. However, after the Senior Counsel had gone through each of the items with him, Hussain admitted that only one of these items was in the process of being worked out, nine had no response or were not agreed upon by the government, and there was common agreement on another nine. For the last nine, the CEO admitted that there was no written document to show same. Further, he was unable to recall the dates when they were executed. Furthermore, the witness admitted that the government decided to execute 14 of the 41 items in opposition of what was proposed.During the course of the crossexamination, Hussain was questioned about the government’s handling of salary increases, with contradictions emerging in his responses. He was asked whether he felt that the government had acted equally upon the GTU’s requests pertaining to salary increases, to which he answered yes. The CEO, however, quickly changed his answer to “no” when Forde asked him whether a 6% increase is equal to 20%, etc.

The question was then asked, “After the proposal was submitted, did the ministry or the union meet and endeavour to satisfactorily settle the difference within 21 days?” Hussain’s response was “no”.

After the court adjourned for lunch and reconvened in the afternoon the crossexamination concluded with questions about unresolved issues related to salary increases and debunching for teachers. Hussain admitted to the prolonged unresolved nature of these issues and acknowledged the lack of progress in resolving them over the years.

Hussain, during cross-examination also revealed that in January, the Government decided that the Ministry of Education would only negotiate with the union on a new multi-year agreement starting in 2024. When prodded by Forde, it was confirmed that this decision was not made public until March 7, in a press statement issued publicly by Hussain.

This announcement, he admitted, came after a meeting on March 4, following Court-ordered mediation, where it was agreed that salary matters from the union’s multi-year proposal would be discussed at a meeting on March 12. At the said meeting, it was revealed to the union that the ministry had no intention of having a multi-year salary discussion.

The court adjourned the matter to April 10, when the legal representatives for each side will present their oral statements.