Chief Justice upholds pay cut for striking teachers
Posted: 04/04/2007 - 10:33 AM
Author: Adele Ramos
The Belize National Teachers’ Union (BNTU) lost in court today, when the Chief Justice, Dr. Abdulai Conteh, ruled that even though the strikes of 2005, and particularly that of April 2005, were legal, the Government of Belize and managements of schools had the right to dock their pay for the time absent.
BNTU went to court asking for three orders – all of which Conteh denied this morning. The first was an order to quash the decision of the Government announced on 21 April 2005 to cut salaries of teachers who had gone on strike. The second was an order to quash the decision of school managements to implement the salary cut, and the third order requested was to mandate the managements of schools to return the monies deducted from teachers’ salaries in May 2005, as a result of the strike. The judge refused the request for the orders and said that he was unable to find anything unreasonable in the actions the BNTU had complained to the court about
This is a significant landmark ruling, especially in light of a declaration made last month by Chief Education Officer, Maud Hyde, that teachers who were absent without permission to participate in the March 16, 2007 protest, would lose a day’s pay as a result. Hyde’s memo indicated the pay cut should be reflected in the next batch of cheques for April 27, 2007.
During the course of the trial, attorney for the BNTU, Lois Young, had argued that the deductions, which were made under Education Rule 102, amounted to disciplinary action against the teachers for striking, and the pay cut amounted to a penalty against teachers who chose to strike. Chief Justice Conteh disagreed with her position, but added that the managing authority of schools can use their discretion and not withhold teachers’ pay for the period on strike.
Chief Justice Conteh said that while there is a right to strike, that does not confer the right for teachers to be paid when they are absent from the classroom. He also said that Rule 102 is not antithetical to the right to strike, though it may not be fully conducive to that right.
The BNTU took the action against the Government of Belize, Lloyd Neal – manager of the Anglican Schools, Clement Wade – manager of Catholic Schools, the general manager of public schools, the chief education officer and the Government of Belize.
Attorney Philip Zuniga represented Wade; attorney Derek Courtenay represented Neal, and Andrea McSweaney of the Attorney General’s Ministry represented the remaining parties.
Before presenting his decision this morning, Chief Justice Conteh chronicled the series of events leading up the strikes of 2005, and declared that the teachers not only had a legitimate cause in striking for the salary increases Government had promised them, but in also tackling major issues of socio-political importance, some of which precipitated the February 11 agreement of 2005, which the BNTU and other trade unions negotiated under the banner of the National Trade Union Congress of Belize.
It is from this agreement that the Government was obliged to commission an investigation of the Development Finance Corporation of Belize.
The only fruit that the BNTU can boast from this court battle is a declaration that the strikes of 2005 were legal, contrary to claims made by their opponents that they were participating in illegal activity.
We note that while the court action was taken by the BNTU, public servants also suffered the same pay cut as teachers did, as they stood together for the same cause.
The Government had issued statements in April 2005 declaring that these officers had no basis to strike and were participating in illegal action. The GOB release also told officers that they would “face disciplinary action and suffer loss of salary for today and any time they are away from office.”
Before the Chief Justice, former Solicitor General, Elson Kaseke, had argued in the hearing that there was no trade dispute between teachers and GOB.
Teachers went on strike from January 21 to February 4, 2005, for their salary increases, and then again on April 26, 2005, on allegations that the Government had not been complying with some fundamental parts of the February 11 agreement. The BNTU cited also that they still had not gotten their proper share certificates for their shares in the Belize Telecommunications Limited, and that they had supported the stance of the NTUCB, in a letter of April 17, 2005, registering a loss of confidence in the Prime Minister and his management of the country’s affairs.
|