The Estate Police Association (EPA) is questioning whether political affiliations are influencing the Government’s treatment of trade unions, arguing that State institutions and resources must not be used to favour organisations aligned with the administration.
In a statement titled The Government Does Not Own the State, the EPA, which is headed by Deryck Richardson, said governments are temporary custodians of the country’s resources, institutions and authority and are constitutionally obligated to exercise public power fairly and impartially.
The association said recent developments in industrial relations have raised concerns about whether unions with political ties to the Government receive a different level of access and engagement than those that operate independently.
Among the examples cited was a comment made by Minister in the Ministry of Public Utilities Clyde Elder during the Public Services Association’s (PSA) wage negotiations. Elder said the PSA had “fought with the party, the UNC, and today, because of that fight, they are seeing the rewards.”
Although Elder later clarified that his remarks referred to unions that had already settled collective agreements at four per cent and could not expect to benefit from the higher settlement secured by the PSA, the EPA said the reference to political support being followed by “rewards” should be of concern to independent unions.
The association stressed that it was not advocating identical treatment or outcomes for all unions. Rather, it said its concern was whether political affiliation was becoming a factor in determining the quality of access and engagement unions receive from the Government.
The EPA also referred to the Government’s relationship with the PSA. Public Utilities Minister Barry Padarath has described the PSA as a valued partner and has intervened in disputes involving the union and the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA).
While welcoming ministerial engagement with trade unions, the EPA questioned whether unions that are not political allies of the Government enjoy the same level of access. It contrasted that relationship with the Government’s response to concerns raised by the Communication Workers’ Union over TSTT, which it described as more confrontational.
The association’s strongest criticism centred on legislation relating to Heritage Petroleum Company Ltd and Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd. Passed in June, the legislation provides for the continuation of collective agreements previously negotiated with Petrotrin following the restructuring of the State-owned oil company. The Government defended the measure as necessary to protect workers’ collective bargaining rights.
The EPA said it supports protecting those rights but questioned whether the Government would demonstrate the same commitment when legislative intervention is sought by an independent union. It noted that it had repeatedly called for amendments to legislation governing the security industry but had received no tangible response.
The association also pointed out that other organisations, including the National Petroleum Staff Association and the EPA, represented workers formerly employed by Petrotrin but were not named in the legislation.
The EPA emphasised that it was not arguing that the Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union should have been denied protection. Instead, it maintained that every recognised union should be able to expect the same principled consideration from the State.
“Labour is not supposed to be an extension of Government,” the association said, warning against a situation in which unions are divided between those inside the political tent and those outside it.
The EPA said the issue transcends both the United National Congress and the People’s National Movement, noting that governments, ministers and political alliances change, but the State remains.
“The Government may have political friends,” the association said. “The State must have citizens.”
