Sugar workers ask Manning to reconsider plans for Caroni

Prime Minister Patrick Manning is being asked to reconsider the “unlawful action” taken by Cabinet regarding the restructuring of  Caroni (1975) Ltd.

The Sugar Workers and Farmers Action headed by Ashton Ramsundar has given instructions to the TT Civil Rights Association to take legal action “if necessary” against Manning with respect to the pension entitlement of sugar workers and the “unreasonableness and unlawfulness of the Voluntary Separation of Employment Package.” Attorneys Garnet Mungalsingh and Ravi Maurice Mungalsingh have written to the Prime Minister requesting that the incentive package offered to sugar workers be reconsidered and a mechanism put in place to protect their rights and legitimate expectations. Seukaran Tambie of the Cane Producers Association has also given instructions to the attorneys and a letter has been sent to Manning. The decision to have cane farmers sell to the Usine Ste Madeline factory on a quality basis will put 90 percent of them out of business.

In it he was informed that statutory contractual arrangements enjoyed by cane farmers under the Production of Cane Act, Chapt 64:01 relating to payment for their canes was altered without Parliamentary approval. The new “quality based” pricing system implemented unilaterally by Cabinet would be a deprivation of cane farmers property rights “without due process of law.” The lawyers said the decisions or action would be unconstitutional and/or illegal and/or void. Cabinet’s decision also caused farmers not to have convenient access to designated weighing and collection stations in established locations. One location at Usine Ste Madeline has been proposed. When this is fully implemented farmers will be spending more to transport their canes.

The attorneys reminded Manning that Cabinet, through the Committee on the Future of Caroni (1975) gave public assurances that farmers in the event of Caroni being restructured, a system of payment for cane would be introduced as an interim measure during a five year period when all canes would be provided by private farmers. This created legitimate expectation “of a substantive benefit in favour of cane farmers,” and it should be honoured by Cabinet. If government wanted to introduce a new method for pricing canes sufficient notice should be given to the cane farmers. “There must have been general and effective consultation with them and if the new system is to be effected, then the farmers would have to be afforded sufficient time and other technical assistance to adjust to the new policy.” The lawyers advised Manning that actions and/or decisions taken the Cabinet have infringed or threaten to infringe on the constitutional right of the cane farmers to earn a livelihood. Manning was told of the farmers’ right to seek Judicial Review at the High Court for decisions taken by government or any public body or person exercising a public duty or function.