|
STATEMENT
BY
Hon. Fred Mitchell MP
Minister of Foreign Affairs & The Public Service
ON
BEHALF OF THE
SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE CABINET
ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS
NAMELY
THE BAHAMAS UNION OF TEACHERS
March 20, 2006
Today, we have come to make a reasoned and dispassionate
appeal to the leaders of the Bahamas Union of Teachers, to the public
itself with regard to the current negotiations with the Bahamas Union of
Teachers (BUT) for an industrial agreement pursuant to the Industrial
Relations Act 1970.
The Negotiating
Committee of the Government headed by the Permanent Secretary of the
Ministry of the Public Service and ably assisted by Messrs. Keith Archer
and Frank Carter, able and experienced trade unionists, have done an
excellent job thus far. The
Committee wants to show public support for their work and indicate that
they have their support.
What concerns us, however, is that it appears that we do not
have a partner to these negotiations that is actually interested in
settling the issues on which we can easily agree.
Instead, it appears to us that every excuse is being used; every
pretext is being used to declare an impasse, and run to the press with a
view to making it appear that the Government wants to fight the Bahamas
Union of Teachers.
We want to assure the public that nothing could be further
from the truth. We believe
that teachers are most valuable to the future of the country.
We recently concluded a landmark agreement with the Bahamas
Public Service Union, the largest public sector union in the country
that was led and negotiated by the same team as this one on behalf of
the Government. The
guidelines have already been established which the Government has to be
consistent with the approach across the public service.
We believe that there ought to be reasonable and rational
chances for advancement. We
have no reason to believe that the Bahamas Union of Teachers would be
opposed to that but it appears that there is something which prevents
them from actually sitting down at the table and simply settling the
issues.
For negotiations to be successful, it requires in our view
three major commitments: first, a partner who is operating in good
faith; secondly, a partner who understands the issues and will be
properly advised on issues that they do not understand; thirdly, a
partner that understands the role and need for civility in public
discourse and across the negotiating table.
On these three points, the
Government side has cause for concern.
On the question of good faith or the lack thereof, the public can
see just in the last year of the new administration of the BUT assuming
leadership, they have had one walkout or another, calling teachers out
of the classroom, disrupting the education of the children.
On the last occasion, they disrupted commerce in the streets
of the country’s principle shopping district.
The last demonstration was done on Wednesday 1st
March; even though they had already agreed that they would sit down to
negotiate a contract on the 9th of March.
Yet days before that they were in the streets rejecting the
proposals of the government before starting negotiations.
Further, the BUT leadership have made public pronouncements
that they will not budge on issues relating to salary and certain terms
and conditions. How do you
enter good faith negotiations, if you start out from the position that
you will not budge?
On the question of understanding the issues or being properly
advised, it is clear that the leadership of the BUT is either confused
or not properly advised. Right
now the recognition agreement that they have, was signed in 1965 prior
to the present Industrial Relations Act, which came into force in 1970.
That recognition agreement confines the BUT and the Government to
discussions on salary issues only.
The second issue which arises out of the existing recognition
agreement is that it combines both rank and file and management
employees in one bargaining unit; whereas the Industrial Relations Act
and the industrial relations practices pursuant thereto, separates the
rank and file from management. Both
are eligible for industrial agreements, but not in the same union.
The Government is perfectly willing to confine itself to
that, and an offer can be made to the BUT’s leadership on Tuesday next
in that regard if they wish us to confine ourselves to the existing
agreement.
Since their argument is that the other issues are so thorny
and an impasse is declared; the Government can easily confine itself to
salary only and be done with this matter.
But it is the BUT that proposes that the issues include other
matters in addition to salary in the draft collective bargaining
agreement that they submitted.
The public should recall that the Government has been ready,
willing and able to pay teachers since December 2005. It was the BUT's leadership that delayed and continues to
delay the settlement of the salary issues for teachers. We are receiving calls from teachers asking us to simply pay
them their money and move on, but we do not want in the bargain to
disrespect the leadership of the union.
Such an act while expedient in the short term will not benefit
the long-term interests of the school system and good industrial
relations.
The leadership of the BUT does not seem to appreciate the
existing law on these points, and they have insisted that the matter be
referred to the Industrial Tribunal for a finding. But there is a further point, there is a question of whether
the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine such a
matter. The Government’s
view is that it may not, and that the matter could be placed before the
Supreme Court for determination.
However, whether the matter was settled or not, the
Government's view on its last scheduled meeting of Tuesday 14th
March was that we should put the issue to one side and proceed with the
other issues. The Union
refused and declared that they would go no further until that issue was
settled.
The Government wished to do this even though the present
recognition agreement does not allow for an Industrial Agreement to be
signed between the two sides, only matters of salary can be properly
settled between us under the existing recognition agreement.
But we think that the public interest requires that there be a
proper industrial agreement. The
public should also remember that it was the BUT that first proposed
this. It will be better for
the management of the school and the long-term interests of the country.
So it comes down to this.
At present, an industrial agreement is not possible given the
present terms of the recognition agreement that was signed between the
Government and the Union in 1965, but we are willing to negotiate a new
recognition agreement, except that we say that the managers and
administrators of the school system: principals, vice principals and
senior masters and mistresses ought to be excluded from the bargaining
unit. That makes sense,
since if a strike is called, the managers of the system must be able to
be on the job and run the school.
The BUT’s leadership has called this Union busting.
The fact is such a decision does not and will not prevent the
principals and other administrators from being union members, but they
cannot be part of the bargaining unit and engage in industrial action.
When these issues were last discussed, the Union declared an
impasse on Tuesday 14th March.
They called a press conference within the Ministry of the Public
Service, a building which is not their headquarters and which they had
no permission to use to say that the negotiations were at an impasse and
the meeting was advised that they would not proceed further until the
issue of the recognition agreement was settled.
The meeting was adjourned sine die, that means without a
date.
On Wednesday 15th March at about 10:30 p.m., one
of the consultants Keith Archer got a telephone call from Ida Poitier
the Union's president to say that they wanted a meeting the next
morning. He was
flabbergasted. These were
the same people who had said one day before they were not coming to any
further meetings until the issue of the recognition agreement was
settled. All the
government's negotiators had made other plans, including for him a trip
overseas to deal with an urgent family matter.
They were told that no meeting would be possible on the Thursday,
but it has been subsequently agreed to meet on Tuesday, 21st
March.
This team will be available on Tuesday.
The next day, the Union's leadership were in the paper,
knowing that there would be no meeting, sitting in the Government's
office for which they had no permission and telling the press that the
Government's side did not show up.
We are faced with irrationality here.
We are faced with something that smacks of other than good
industrial relations practice. We
do not know whether to put it down to their inexperience or just what is
causing them to react in what appears to be an aberrant fashion.
Just as a matter of practice it would seem to be
counterproductive to be crying wolf to your supporters in the teaching
profession. Eventually calling people out in the streets will grow
tiresome. Now we understand the teachers have been put on amber alert.
So what it appears is that every time there is a little hiccup in
the negotiations the teachers are going to be called off their jobs to
disrupt the school system.
What must parents think of teachers? What must students think
of teachers, when they cannot predict if they will see them in the
classroom? This is a school
system that has a grade average with which the public is dissatisfied
and for which there is a clamour for change.
We need to get on with the substantive business and stop the
drama, and spoiling for a fight where no one from the Government side is
interested in fighting. Any
reasonable proposals will be settled forthwith.
Let us do that and stop all the public haranguing which is simply
not becoming. We simply
want to get these matters settled so that the job of teaching can be
done, and looking after our children’s future.
Finally there is the issue of civility in public discourse.
Our negotiators have reported that the level of invective within
the meetings is unusual. Every
point is tortuously parried and countervailed.
It is almost as if there is wish that there will be no
settlement. In their
relations with the Government, there appears to be a delight in hurling
invective and insults as a means of solving these issues.
We accept that some of this is part of the normal democratic
process but what we ask the public is whether or not at the end of the
day, this moves the process further.
You do not have to like us in order to successfully conclude a
sensible industrial agreement. There
must be civility and mutual respect across the table and in public.
Certainly at all times, the Union’s leadership has been
accorded respect and civility.
Let us therefore reassure the public.
The negotiating team has the full support of the Government.
The remit is to settle the matter in the way they believe is most
appropriate in the best interests of the country and the Ministry of
Education, and within the remit given to them by the government, in
particular our financial constraints.
They will be at the table on Tuesday awaiting the BUT’s
leadership, and what we hope is that there will substantive discussions
and an atmosphere of civility across the table.
We must demonstrate that we mean to settle these issues.
We also assure the public that the government is ready
willing and able to settle an agreement with the BUT within the
constraints of the law and within the constraints of the prudent use of
the Bahamian people’s resources.
No amount of bamboozling, insults and invective can change what
the law is and the fact that we have to act within it.
We also say that any minister on this team or any minister of
the Government would be willing to assist in trying to settle these
issues. If there is a need
for a mediator, we will consider that favourably as well. However it is
most important for the process to be followed.
The situation simply cannot continue as it is going with stall
delay and defer.
We appeal for this process to begin on Tuesday and for an end
to the disharmony and high drama, where they are not necessary and are
certainly counterproductive.
Once again, we wish to thank all the hardworking, dedicated
and responsible teachers for their continued work toward the education
of our children. We commend
all those teachers who continue to ensure that our system of education
works from day to day to secure the future of our children and our
country.
-- end --
March 19, 2006
|
