Ganga sticks to impropriety claim - Armstrong, Thomas deny charges in letters to Jeffrey By Courtney Jones Stabroek News September 10, 1999 As the controversy over the public service tribunal award continues, letters to Labour Minister Dr Henry Jeffrey from Chairman, Dr Aubrey Armstrong and the unions' representative, Dr Clive Thomas have provoked a swift response from government's representative, Dr Gobind Ganga, who is claiming "major procedural improprieties," in the award. The Barbados-based Dr Armstrong, said he had made four attempts between August 30, and 31, to arrive at a consensus on the quantum of the award. In his letter to Dr Jeffrey dated September 3, the Guyanese-born management expert said he had had two meetings with Dr Ganga on August 30, including a telephone conference; and two telephone conferences with him on August 31, before the award was announced, to try to arrive at a consensus. Ganga disassociated himself from the majority decision of the three-man tribunal which awarded a 31.06% pay hike for 1999 based on the wages as of December 31, 1998 and 26.67% for 2000 based on wages as of December 31, 1999. In his minority report, Ganga had described the arbitration process as "a farcical exercise", accused Armstrong and Thomas of not being neutral and said that the tribunal was essentially a two-man affair. But Armstrong in his letter to Jeffrey, which was carbon copied to President Bharrat Jagdeo, Chief Industrial Relations Officer Mohamed Akeel and Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) and Federation of Unions of Government Employees (FUGE) presidents, Patrick Yarde and Seelo Baichan, described Ganga's allegations as "wild charges" that were "baseless, malicious and vexing". Armstrong said that early drafts of the arbitration report were prepared by the tribunal and that it was agreed that Ganga would e-mail him a summary of the government's case and its implications for consideration and Thomas would do the same by August 24. Armstrong said he received Thomas' full contribution on the deadline and returned a draft report on August 26, but only received Ganga's input on August 27, as he left home in Barbados for his return to Guyana. But in a letter to Jeffrey dated September 9, Ganga disagreed with Armstrong's statement that the earlier report draft and areas of contentions were working papers and could not be legally taken as a report of the tribunal majority. "The considerations in these drafts had remained virtually unchanged until August 29, 1999 and were therefore in my considered opinion, integral to arriving at the award. In view of this, the draft reports are very much part of the tribunal proceedings and must be taken into consideration as evidence in evaluating the workings of the tribunal," Ganga wrote. The Bank of Guyana economist noted that Armstrong's confirmation in his letter that he had sent a draft copy of the tribunal report to Thomas one day before he received his copy "suggest[s] that the tribunal process was essentially a two-member show." He denied that he was ever asked, as claimed by Armstrong, to e-mail a summary of the government's case by August 24. He said that there was never any deadline for him to provide government's case and he had e-mailed government's case to Armstrong at 1100 hrs on August 26. "Further I was never asked to provide any consideration... only Prof Thomas knew about the requirement of providing considerations by the so-called deadline that I was never really made aware of...," Ganga said, adding that he nevertheless submitted nine considerations which were not included in the subsequent draft. Armstrong said that on August 29, the tribunal met to finalise the report and agree on an award after having met on the two previous days to "refine, edit and agree on the report". Armstrong stated that one of the major areas of contention in the tribunal was the section of the draft report which stated, recognising "that, from the industrial relations' standpoint, it would be infeasible to start from any position other than that the current payout now received by the public service employees is the base from which we should contemplate our award--even though the Terms of Resumption suggests that an award can, in theory go below this." At the Saturday meeting, Armstrong said, Ganga disagreed with this formulation and said he interpreted it differently than himself and Thomas. "Dr Ganga then informed the Tribunal that he was party to the teachers' tribunal and that the award was 12% at the top and ten percent at the bottom and that this was his 'roof' i.e. his top limit," Armstrong said. But Ganga slammed what he called the assertion by Armstrong that the award by the teachers' tribunal was the basis for his offer of 12% for the public service as "totally false and baseless". Armstrong said Thomas had indicated that his "floor" was based on the average increase in take home pay of public servants after the interim payment which averaged 17% at the bottom and 25% near the top of the scale. The arbitration chairman said in his letter that when he noted to Thomas and Ganga, the huge gap in their positions and suggested that they should try to close it, Ganga became angry and attempted to leave. Armstrong said that when he cast his vote with Thomas on the issue, Ganga walked out of the meeting at approximately 1.45 pm "saying two things: a) that he had to check with his political masters; and b) that he was going to write a minority report." "The final decision was based on the fact that the minimum salary at the lowest band of the public service wage and salary structure shall be, in effect from 1 January, 1999, $15,000, which worked out to be 31.06% in its application across the board," Armstrong said. He said Ganga was not part of the final decision because "he arrogantly refused to even discuss the issues outside his 'roof' of 12% at the top and ten percent at the bottom." Among other areas, Armstrong wants Jeffrey to investigate and pronounce on are Akeel demanding tapes and records of the tribunal proceedings, which he said is against the law and Ganga's misunderstanding of his role as a tribunal member. He noted that the unions still sought certain clarifications and that as such the tribunal still had legal responsibilities and had not completed its work. Armstrong said he noted that Akeel had taken the tribunal records from Secretary, Camille Liladri, and reminded that until the tribunal had discharged all its responsibilities, the records belonged to the tribunal and that the tapes and records were still needed for reviewing editing and finalisation. Armstrong said he had expected them to be returned to the tribunal secretary no later than 4 pm on Monday last. "I trust minister, that you will urge [Akeel] to obey the law and further point out to him that it is inappropriate for him to write to this tribunal demanding anything since he has no power over it," Armstrong wrote. With regard to Ganga, Armstrong said that by his very comments about "political masters," Ganga misunderstood his role, which led to his abandonment and attack of the proceedings. Armstrong said he took the job of chairman of tribunal against the advice of scores of his countrymen. "As you and your colleagues assail my integrity and that of my colleague on the tribunal Dr Clive Thomas, I wonder about their advice," Armstrong said. And in a letter to Jeffrey dated September 6, Thomas said he wished to state "categorically that Dr Ganga walked out of the tribunal's proceedings." "After Dr Ganga's walkout, the meeting continued and the Chairman and I proceeded to prepare the majority report," Thomas said. Ganga, persuaded to return to a meeting on August 30, by the chairman, left after 15 minutes and on Tuesday up to 11:50 am during a telephone conversation with Armstrong refused to budge from his position, he added. Thomas, in his letter, also confirmed Armstrong's statements about the drafting of the report. Ganga denied this in his letter to Jeffrey. "I have consistently pointed out to the tribunal members that the budgetary considerations and the adverse macroeconomic implications... are the basis of my offer. In view of this, it is preposterous for Dr Armstrong and Prof Thomas to claim that I needed political clearance for a higher award which I knew would have serious economic and political implications," Ganga said in his letter. Ganga also denied that he walked out of the proceedings calling the charge "ludicrous" and called on Thomas to provide "the timing, circumstances and manner" of his leaving for the public to judge. Dr Thomas's letter was also carbon copied to President Jagdeo, Akeel, Yarde and Baichan. A © page from: Guyana: Land of Six Peoples