128 Tanteak workers take Manning to court

ONE hundred and twenty-eight former Tanteak employees have taken Prime Minister Patrick Manning to court over a decision of the Cabinet not to compensate them for losses they suffered when they severed ties with the company. On Thursday, Justice Peter Jamadar, sitting in the San Fernando High Court, granted leave to the former employees to file for judicial review of the decision taken by Cabinet on March 17 this year. The employees were represented in court by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC, instructed by Garnet Mungalsingh. The workers gave up their jobs in July 2001 on the undertaking made by Government that if they did so, 75 percent of the severed work force would have been re-employed by CLICO, the company in whose favour the Government had taken steps to divest Tanteak.

The applicants gave up their jobs but the divestment to CLICO did not go through and the workers became jobless. Tanteak did not re-employ the applicants after the sale transaction to CLICO fell through. According to court documents, the Cabinet, on August 8, 2002, promised the applicants that it would pay them for loss of earnings from September 1, 2001 to August 7, 2002. By letter dated August 28, 2002, the Divestment Secretariat of the Ministry of Finance wrote to the National Union of Government and Federated Workers (NUGFW) agreeing that it would compensate the workers of Tanteak. The Government held discussions with some of the applicants and NUGFW representatives. The Government, during those discussions, acknowledged that it was liable for its failure to fulfil its promises to have the workers re-employed by CLICO and promised to compensate the applicants and other workers severed by Tanteak.

The Government also took steps for the applicants and other severed workers to be paid outstanding increases in salary of nine percent which were due to them for the period 1999 to 2001. The applicants claim that the Government has not paid them for loss of earnings. Through their attorney, the applicants wrote to the Prime Minister on March 17 requesting that the matter be settled and that they be paid their compensation. They contend that on May 13, their attorneys received a letter from the Secretary to the Prime Minister in which the Prime Minister acknowledged receipt of the March 17 letter, but pointed out that the Prime Minister gave no assurance and/or undertaking that the Cabinet would compensate the applicants for loss of earnings.