GTU has no minutes for meetings with Education Ministry – Court told

One day after President of the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) Mark Lyte told the High Court that he had minutes for meetings with the Ministry of Education for the period 2019 to 2023, the court learned on Wednesday that no such documents exist.

Lyte said on Tuesday that the GTU had in its possession minutes of meetings with the Education Ministry but noted that those minutes did not have details on discussions relating to financial matters.

Lyte gave this assurance to the court after the GTU’s attorney Darren Wade insisted that he hadn’t any minutes in his possession and none existed.

And so, the Education Ministry was ordered to provide before mid-night, but no later than 24 hours, all documentary evidence supporting agendas and minutes of meetings with the GTU from 2020 to February 05, 2024 when some teachers commenced their strike and daily protests that lasted for five weeks until a court-ordered mediation process.

Those documents were handed over and to move the case forward, Justice Sandil Kissoon proposed that all the minutes, from both sides, be examined by all parties and a single statement of fact be prepared with the disputed facts now set out separately.

It was then that Justice Kisson learned, after a lengthy period of back and forth and objections from Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, that the GTU hadn’t any minutes.

And so that process was abandoned.

The only minutes before the court are those ordered and produced by the Ministry of Education which Nandlall asserts confirms the Chief Education Officer’s claim that financial matters were discussed with the union between 2019 and 2023.

Cross-examination in the case began on Wednesday with the union’s 2nd Vice President Julian Cambridge called as the first witness to the stand.

It was at this point that State Counsel Darshan Ramdhani, QC, began his questioning to prove to the court that while financial considerations in the 2019 – 2023 proposal were discussed, the only agreement in place for implementation is a 2018 collective bargaining agreement.

Before that, Nandlall complained about the burden placed on the respondent, the Ministry of Education, to prove the case brought by the applicant, the GTU.

Nandlall also accused the court of shifting the goalpost to accommodate the applicant.

“I am bewildered by the way this case has been and is unfolding…the applicant must establish the case factually and legally.

“The respondent is required to answer to the case as it is laid out and he has done so… that should be enough for court to make determination,” Nandlall said.

Nandlall was, however, reminded that if he believe the court is acting unfairly, there is a recourse for him.