Port of Spain, Trinidad. The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) today found that the Guyana
Agricultural and General Workers Union (“GAWU”) and National Association of Agricultural,
Commercial and Industrial Employees (“NAACIE”) were adequately consulted before the
Government’s decision to close the Rose Hall and Enmore sugar estates on December 29th, 2017.
GAWU and NAACIE represented most of the workers employed by the Guyana Sugar
Corporation (“Guysuco”).
After the Government’s announcement on May 8th, 2017 to close the estates, which would have
resulted in the dismissal of thousands of sugar workers; Sattie Basdeo, Trustee of GAWU and
Roxanne St. Hill, Trustee of NAACIE challenged the decision in the High Court on the basis that
the unions were inadequately consulted. They also contended that their constitutional right to work
was breached. However, their action was dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of
Appeal. The Applicants then turned to the Caribbean Court of Justice seeking special leave to
appeal but the Court ordered the parties to include the arguments that would be raised as part of
their appeal if the leave was granted. The matter was then heard on July 10, 2018.
The CCJ agreed with the lower courts that there was sufficient consultation, though it did not
consider the Commission of Inquiry held in 2015 on the viability of Guysuco to be part of the
consultation process. The Court held that the subsequent stakeholder meetings were sufficient
consultation. There were three meetings prior to the announcement of the final decision and at one
of them, GAWU made a two-hour presentation on the future of Guysuco. The process, according
to the Court, was not perfect but satisfied the legal duty to consult in the circumstances. The Court
also found that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the Applicants had reasonable
notice of Guysuco’s intentions to close, the reasons for closure and the number and categories of
workers affected as legally required.
The Court declined to address whether the right to work enshrined in the Constitution was breached
as this allegation stemmed from the argument that there was a breach of the duty to consult. Having
found that there was no such breach, there was no need to make a determination on the
constitutional issue.

The Court also considered if the Attorney General could represent the state-owned corporation of
Guysuco. The CCJ ruled that the Attorney General cannot represent the interest of private and
public entities which are not part of the state and therefore, the Attorney General could not
represent the Guysuco in this matter. However, the Court did note that the Attorney General could
represent the State in the application which sought constitutional relief for the alleged breach of
the Applicants’ constitutional rights.
The Court made no order as to costs. The appeal was determined by the President of the CCJ and
the Honourable Justices Wit, Hayton, Anderson and Rajnauth-Lee. The Applicants were
represented by Mr Devindra Kissoon and the Respondents by Mr Basil Williams SC MP, Mrs
Joycelin Kim Kyte-Thomas, Mrs Beverley Bishop-Cheddie and Mrs Judy Stuart-Adonis. The full
decision of the Court can be found on the Court’s website at .