By Kuini Lutua

INTRODUCTION

On 5 December 2006, when news of the 2006 coup surfaced, I was with seven senior members of the Fiji Nursing Association (FNA) at our MacGregor Road headquarters. We were practicing presentations of the FNA’s submission on the draft Radium Protection Bill. A special cabinet select committee was scheduled to meet with us at 10am that morning. Just as we left the office to go to Parliament House, mobile phones started ringing as distressed family members called their relatives about the coup and the trouble at the parliamentary complex at Veiuto.

Amongst the callers was my secretary, calling to alert me that there had been a military coup and that the cabinet select committee meeting had been postponed until further notice. We returned to the conference hall, and I conveyed to my colleagues what had happened. As we sat down, one of the nurses tapped my back and said, let us pray and not worry. I don’t know how my heart cried out that day as we prayed. All I can remember is that after a very long time I heard myself saying ‘amen’ in unison with my colleagues. We hugged each other, and then the other FNA leaders returned to their jobs at the CWM Hospital. The 2006 coup left the FNA in a difficult position. We had negotiated concessions from the now deposed government of Laisenia Qarase, but these had not yet been implemented. Would they be honoured by the post-coup administration? What would be the result of the inevitable economic decline that invariably follows Fiji’s coups, and the cutbacks in civil service pay that have also been a familiar feature of post-coup policy-making? What kind of solidarity could be
expected from other trades unions in negotiations with the post-coup interim government? This chapter looks at the background to the nurses’ strike of July–August 2007, at the fissures that emerged amongst the trades unions, and at the confrontation between the nurses and the interim cabinet

The signed partnership agreement and memorandum of agreement

The FNA, together with members of the Confederation of Public Sector Unions (CPSU – comprising the Fiji Public Service Association [FPSA] and Fiji Teachers Union [FTU]), had, after some hard negotiation, on 26 April 2006, signed a partnership agreement with Prime Minister Qarase, the chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), Mr Stuart Huggett, and its secretary, Anare Jale; it culminated in a five year Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) that established an Industrial Relations Framework (IRF) set to run from 2006 to 2008. The MoA contained clauses that were to resolve industrial relations issues dating back to 2003; to give back to the members of the FNA and other public servants most of the outstanding payments of increments and scheduled cost of living adjustments; and entailed some commitment to the implementation of the 2003 Mercer Job Evaluation Exercise recommendations.

I was thrilled, knowing that with the agreement and the MoA, I could now leave the FNA when my contract expired and seek less stressful jobs. What I had set out to do for the nurses seemed to be finally materializing. The Qarase government had accepted the need for some redress to cover the loss of salaries that civil servants had experienced in the wake of the 2000 coup. This acceptance had come as a surprise to the FNA because a few of the ministers in the Qarase government had labeled civil servants as ‘dead wood’, ‘under-performing’, or ‘time-wasters’. There was seldom a good word about the dedicated service of those who worked tirelessly to fulfill the wishes of these ministers and provide essential services to the public. This change in attitude indicated an emerging awareness that only civil servants could implement government’s political strategies. For the FNA, the negotiations that led up to the signing of the partnership agreement showed the importance of presenting a strong and water-tight case to the government, buttressed by robust facts and figures, in order to convince ministers that taking better care of public sector workers would give the workers an incentive to work harder and more productively. It was also pointed out during the negotiations that it was mainly civil servants who suffered financial hardship each time there was a coup.

The 2000 coup happened shortly after the conclusion of a previous strike by the nurses. Some people to this day still blame the nurses for that coup, saying that they had, prior to the takeover, staged a protest to ensure that the Mahendra Chaudhry-led government would fall. These same people, however, forget that two strong women supporters of the Fiji Labour Party were past executives of the FNA and that, prior to the 2000 coup, they still had much influence over the running of the Association. The May 2000 strike was a result of legitimate industrial grievances: it was not a politically orchestrated attempt to destabilize the Chaudhry government. As a result of that strike, the PSC ordered a salary review, and the nurses went back to work, while their dispute was referred to arbitration. They then accepted without question an Award by permanent arbitrator Jon Apted. Little did they know that problems would arise during the implementation period: The PSC and Ministry of Health repeated their mistake of 1998 – the salaries of the nurses and medical orderlies were wrongly assimilated to the salary scale recommended in 1993. Salary levels had since been adjusted to add three more levels, so the change in salary should have entailed a movement across rather than downwards.The members were upset and angry about this unfair treatment. Although the dollar value of their new salaries was often higher, they found that they had lost, on average, two to four increment levels once they were moved to the new scale. To make matters worse, all civil servants had been denied annual increments because the government had frozen increments. Many of the members had remained on the same salary level for the previous four or five years of
service, some for even longer.

When new graduates came into the workforce after 2000, the more senior nurses – including those who had graduated a year or two earlier – found themselves on the same salary as the newcomers. Many tendered their resignations and looked outside the Ministry of Health for employment. Some migrated overseas. More than 20 nurses moved on to the newly opened Suva Private Hospital and some joined the Military Hospital where they were offered a better salary packet. Some who remained in the public sector workforce, resigned from the FNA
because there was no response from its officials, the Ministry of Health or the PSC in relation to their salary grievances. The FNA lost a considerable number of members in this period. Many members started criticizing the Association’s leaders, but it was difficult to ascertain the real cause of the dissension of members at the time. Migration overseas of nurses was to become an evermore pressing issue in the wake of the 2000 coup. In addition to long-established destinations – like Australia, New Zealand and England – new destinations – like Bermuda and the Bahamas – actively sought to recruit nurses from Fiji. Other Pacific Islands – such as the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Cook Islands – had formerly recruited Fiji nurses, but pay-rates in the Pacific have become uncompetitive compared with those on offer from the newer destinations. One of the barriers to the movement of Fiji nurses overseas has always been the need for prospective migrants to pay the airfares. But recruiters from the Caribbean now offer packages that include air travel costs, thereby generating the potential for a much more substantial drain of nursing talent from Fiji in future years.

As in May 2000, nurses went on strike in 2005 over the issue of wrong assimilation of salaries for nurses who had graduated before 2000. Some were earning between F$9,000 to F$11,000 when they should have been earning F$14,000 to F$16,000. Payroll had been part of my responsibility when I was with my previous employer, the Reserve Bank of Fiji. I was well aware of the effects of payments of annual increments and the importance of workers getting the correct movement in salary when promotions and acting allowances were paid. It was not too difficult for me to see that there was something seriously wrong with the salaries that the nurses were being paid. There were continuous complaints from members that they had been on a higher salary before the salary adjustment of 2000/2001. My first task when I became the FNA General Secretary in September 2001 was to listen to the members tell me their stories about the unfairness of the 2000 salary review and the subsequent award. Checking the files and getting salary slips and letters of appointment from members, I discovered that, it was not only those who had commenced their careers shortly before 2000 that were affected, but also those who had started well before 1998. I began to work with the office staff to build up case histories for all members that brought up salary grievances. After a while, we were able to detect a pattern in the salary treatment of staff nurses who had graduated in the same year and those who had been promoted in the same year.

We found that many of these senior nurses had lost out on the higher salary that should have accompanied promotion because their salary before promotion had been determined at the wrong level. This generated widespread disillusionment and lack of incentive to work hard, beyond the common compassion of nurses to provide care for the sake of saving lives. Some of the nurses turned to the teachings of the Nurses Christian Fellowship, which urged them to forsake strike action and preached ‘you do not ask for your pay, because nursing is a calling from God’. Some would say to the junior nurses, ‘one day your pay will be put right but you must not refuse to do good because your pay is low – you just provide the service’. In 2006, this unsatisfactory situation appeared to have reached some resolution. The correct salary adjustments were finally calculated for most nurses. For some, this was on the eve of their retirement. There may be others who retired on the wrong salary. I had to constantly negotiate with Anare Jale who was then secretary to the Public Service Commission, and Stuart Huggett who was its chairman. Having someone from the private sector as the chair of the PSC brought some useful experience to the position, and enabled the government to finally acknowledge the great injustice that had been done to those employed in the civil service. I have a sister who was holding a senior technical civil service post.

When I shared with her the story of the regular transfer of nurses to the wrong position on the new salary scale, she confirmed that it was the same for all the other civil servants. She added that it hurt the technical staff in the different ministries to be so treated: they know that they are qualified people, have been trained for at least three years and have specialist skills and competencies that are essential for the core services of government. Yet their remuneration has not moved upwards in the way that had been settled during previous negotiations
between government and the public sector unions. In the aftermath of the 2006 coup, in early 2007, the interim government declared to the media that there would be a 10 per cent pay cut for all civil servants. The FNA and CPSU members approached new PSC chair Rishi Ram to confirm what the media was reporting. He denied the news reports. He said that there was no confirmed reduction but it was likely that the partnership agreement and MoA would be affected by the change in government. This was no surprise to us, given the bitter experience of civil servants after the 1987 and 2000 coups. The timing was dreadful from the public service employees’ point of view: there was to have been some salary increase for the civil servants in the last pay of
December 2006, and another 2 per cent adjustment in the beginning of 2007. In mid-2006, there had been agreement for a delayed staggered payment of 2 per cent arising from the agreement between the trade unions representing the civil servants and the Qarase government. This all changed after the December 2006
coup. At first, it was said that the balance of payment due for the three year IRF, covering 2005 to 2007, would be paid sometime in 2007. That never eventuated. Nurses had good reason to feel aggrieved.

When the negotiations with the PSC became no longer fruitful, the CPSU agreed that members would vote on the separate issues affecting each of the public sector unions. In addition to the broader issues, the FNA had an ongoing dispute about the 12-hour shift that was being imposed on nurses by the CWM Hospital management. Although several meetings had taken place with the Ministry of Health representatives and the PSC, the FNA was not satisfied with the outcome of the talks and sought the intervention of the Minister for Health, Dr Jona Senilagakali. Fortunately, he decided in our favour, agreeing, on the basis of evidence that we presented to his ministry, that such shifts were not feasible. The FNA conducted a secret ballot on the five issues affecting our members in March 2007, with the results being declared on 28 April at the 50th Annual General Meeting of the Fiji Nursing Association at the Tradewinds Hotel in Lami, on Suva’s outskirts. There was an overwhelming response from the members, with 875 votes cast on all five issues. At the final count, 89 per cent of votes were in favour of taking industrial action – (i) against the 5 per cent salary reduction; (ii) for not honouring the partnership agreement; (iii) for not honouring the MoA signed with the previous Qarase government; (iv) for the breach of the collective agreement on the reduction of the compulsory retirement age from 60 years to 55 years; and, (v) for the imposition of a 12-hour shift for nurses who worked in hospitals.

A trade dispute was lodged on 21 June 2007 with the Ministry of Labour, Industrial Relations and Tourism, through its permanent secretary, Taito Waqa, indicating the cause of the dispute, the results of the secret ballot and the intended date for industrial action (midnight 24 July 2007). As our members worked in essential services, we had to give 28 days notice to the ministry of our intention to take industrial action. The intention of this law, I believe, was to give the relevant ministries enough time to intervene through a dispute committee or mediation process to try to settle the matter amicably.

The FNA then waited for a reply to our notification. We knew that we had followed the rules to the letter, but we received only a reply that the dispute was being analyzed. Even before we knew the result of the secret ballot, the interim Minister for Labour, Industrial Relations and Tourism, Bernadette Rounds Ganilau, had sent me a copy of a letter addressed to the general secretary of the Public Service Association, Rajeshwar Singh, requesting his attendance at a meeting aimed at mediation with the trade unions that were contemplating filing
trade disputes. I immediately sent a reply to her, stating that dialogue was of no use to us because our grievances were already under consideration by our membership through the secret ballot. At that stage, we in the leadership of the FNA were not sure whether or not our members would want to stage industrial
action. I was not happy with the way that the FNA was addressed in the correspondence. It seemed to me that our invitation to the mediation meeting was an afterthought. Furthermore, we did not want to start premature dialogue that might compromise our position. It was the minister herself who wanted to mediate. However, there
are appointed officers in the Ministry of Labour who are trained to do this job. In my opinion, the minister has the last say and is the final decision-maker. For the minister to intervene in person at this early stage would have been a waste of time for us as well as her. Nevertheless, other trade unions decided to meet her for this mediation process. The media later reported that these efforts were not successful.

The countdown for the industrial action started when the trade dispute was lodged. Internally, FNA president Simione Racolo called for an emergency meeting of the FNA national council. At this meeting, we informed the council of the process that was to take place; about the results of the negotiations that we had been having with the PSC; and about the involvement of the permanent secretary for health, Dr Lepani Waqatakirewa. The members were told to prepare their colleagues by updating them weekly on the progress of the talks with the
interim government. As general secretary, I was to be in contact with them if some positive changes seemed likely to materialize. The presidents of all the FNA branches were asked to keep talking to members, encouraging them to keep working normally with the patients. For those who worked in weekly or monthly clinics, they were to be told that, if there were to be industrial action, they were not to come to the health centres or hospitals, but to take a supply of drugs for patients to cover that period. The branch presidents were reminded to choose their picket sites carefully so that they were not on government premises. If picket sites were in public places, the owner of the land was to be approached traditionally. Picket sites in Fijian villages were discouraged, to avoid any appearance of ethnic bias. Ours is a multiracial union, and we did not want to seem dependent on traditional Fijian support. (Sometimes this was unavoidable; in Tavua, for example, the
turaga ni vanua insisted that it was his duty and that of his warriors to protect the nurses.) Other plans included assembly and distribution of the cell-phone numbers of contacts at the branch level because we were not to use the government phones. The FNA national council met to decide on the financial assistance to be given to branches that needed it. In past strikes, we had found it necessary to look after striking members only for two or three days. Judged by our previous strike experiences, we were very optimistic.

A week or two before the 24 July, when the nurses’ strike was scheduled to commence, I continued talks with my counterparts, Agni Deo Singh, the general secretary of Fiji Teachers Union, and Rajeshwar Singh, the general secretary of the Fiji Public Service Association. Together, we tried to negotiate with interim Minister for Public Sector Reform Poseci Bune. This man, I thought, did not know what he was talking about – we found what he was offering absurd because he made no commitment to any movement in the interim government’s position despite being aware that all three of our unions had lodged trade disputes with the Ministry of Labour. He also made it difficult for us to meet him – for example, at one point, giving excuses that he was not in Suva and that we would have to wait until he returned after the weekend.

Meanwhile, our 28 days notice deadline was closing in and we had not made any progress. Rajeshwar Singh again made arrangements with the CPSU to meet the ‘money man’ Mahendra Chaudhry. This arrangement, I believe, was made through Felix Anthony, the general secretary of the Fiji Trade Union Congress (FTUC). By this time, there was a rumour that the FTUC was backing the interim government and that the unions that were affiliated with this organization would not stage any industrial action while the interim government was in power. I do not know how true this was but there were mixed feelings amongst the FTUC affiliates – some of them supported us later on during the strike. We met the interim Minister for Finance at his office on 9 July 2007. This was after the CPSU had met with Poseci Bune earlier on the same day. That afternoon, the CPSU leaders were called to meet with the interim Minister for Finance at the FTUC building to finalize what had been discussed with Rajeshwar Singh at the interim Finance Minister’s office earlier in that day.

During those discussions I was uneasy and sensed that my fellow trade unionists had sold us out because I did not hear any change in the initial offer that the interim government had made to settle our trade dispute. Personally, I wanted to vomit. I couldn’t believe that my colleagues and ‘brother trade unionists’ had embraced defeat by accepting the deal from government without any struggle at all. They had told me that the secret ballots conducted amongst their members had delivered over 90 per cent in favour of industrial action. I could not understand how easily they could change their tune on that day. I prayed that evening as we sat late into the night at the FTUC office, and resolved not to sign any agreement until I had consulted with Simone Racolo and the Suva-based National Council. Some of my colleagues were disappointed by my decision. On 12 June 2007, together with CPSU leaders Rajeshwar Singh and Agni Deo Singh, I met with interim Prime Minister Bainimarama to try to convince him that the policies that they intended to apply to the civil servants would damage the public sector and create a very negative image of the interim government’s leadership, jeopardizing their claims to bring positive change to the country.

Our three unions met more regularly after the nurses’ trade dispute had been lodged, but it became ever clearer that the FPSA and FTA were not committed to strike action or solidarity with the nurses. A week after our dispute was lodged, I met the interim Minister for Commerce, Taito Waradi, and his ministry’s permanent secretary, Mr Yauvoli. Mr Waradi was also acting Minister for the Public Service Commission. He had been informed of our dispute and wanted to talk to me regarding how best our issues could be addressed. I agreed to see him partly because we had been classmates at the Dudley High School in 1970, and because Mr Yauvoli’s wife was a personal friend. At that meeting, I pointed out to both Mr Waradi and Mr Yauvoli the importance to us of the agreement and the MoA. I was afraid that if the interim government did not honour them, it would cause nurses to take industrial action. These were very important agreements for both salaried and wage-earning civil servants. If they were to throw these agreements out, I told them, I was afraid to think of the consequences.

Mr Waradi suggested that perhaps the interim government might shelve or defer the implementation of its planned course of action. I responded that the impact of this would depend on how it was announced to the public and how we in the trade union leadership might explain the interim government’s intentions to our members. I emphasized the fact that the two agreements contained commitments by the government to pay the lost salaries and wages of civil servants who had been in government employment since 2001. In total, the agreements entailed a salary increase of around 27 per cent even without adjustment for the fact that the entire civil service had not received a full increment since 2000. Only about seven per cent of what was contained in the agreement and MoA had been paid by January 2006. Normal increments averaged three per cent for other civil servants. The other important issues were the implementation of the 2003 Mercer Job Evaluation recommendations; the implementation of the intended Performance Management System (PMS) and the job-related allowances; and the need to address the unions’ 2003 log of claims. In the MoA, the issues specific to nurses were: the re-introduction of higher pay for higher professional qualifications and scarce skills; the provision for housing for nurses and medical orderlies or payment of lodging allowance in lieu of housing; and the payment of risk allowance to nurses and medical orderlies who work in high risk areas. These were very important issues for the nurses and had been continually raised at FNA annual general meetings. Even if nurses’ pay remained low, improved working conditions – such as provision of rent-free housing – would discourage many nurses from leaving Fiji.

On 10 July 2007, I called the FNA president and the two Suva-based council members to update them on an offer from interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry – a restoration of 1 per cent of the proposed 5 per cent pay-cuts in December 2007. I explained my position and I also reminded them about the mandate we had from the members. I wanted to hear their views on the way forward for me as the FNA’s chief negotiator. By this point, I suspected that we were alone in our fight, as the other trade unions had their own issues to think about, and because their mandate from their members was not clear. The president ordered an emergency meeting on 21 July of the full national council so that we could inform them of what had transpired and seek their reaction. The FNA president and I had sought the intervention of the interim Minister for the Public Service Commission as the end of the 28-day notice period drew near. We sat twice with the Permanent Secretary for Health and the Secretary to the PSC on 20 July to try and come to a consensus. At the special national council meeting at the FNA Conference Hall on 21 July 2007, reports from most national council members were presented. Not one of them indicated a negative response to the strike action. While all this was going on, I was involved in a big project with the European Union; it was to start with workshops in Viti Levu and Vanua Levu. I used these opportunities to meet the members and talk to them about what might transpire, and I also gauged their feedback on the strength of resolve in the different branches. One message that we emphasized was ‘explain to your husband/wife and family members why we have to take strike action, so that they will support
you’. We did not know how long the scheduled strike would last, but, because there would be no pay for a number of days, we needed their understanding and cooperation. We had very able and committed national council members representing the 20 FNA branches, and they were very aware of the difficulties that we would face by making a stand on our own. Our CPSU team had broken up and I respected the decisions that my colleagues had taken. I had to brace myself for the outcome of the FNA emergency meeting of 21 July 2007.

After that, there was no turning back. The president and I had received warnings, and even threats, that we couldn’t back out at that stage as the response from the branch representatives was overwhelming. We knew that, because many of our members were married to members of the security forces, they might face severe pressure to back down; but the word from many of them was ‘they became nurses first and got married later’. Many of these brave women and men came out on strike when the clock struck midnight on 24 July 2007. The media and members of the security forces continued to hound me and the FNA president around the clock for comments and explanations. Other members of the national council were also pestered by members of the security forces near their workplace. However, we handled this professionally. There were two incidents of violence reported to us involving members being manhandled by their spouses; we allowed these members to go back to work for their own safety.

On the first day, more than 1,000 nurses were reported to be at the 20 picket sites. Others joined in on the second and third days. Even some non-members joined in and, as they did so, filled in FNA membership forms at the different strike sites around the country. On the second day, we called upon interim Prime Minister Bainimarama to intervene. He refused. Instead, he said the strike was a ploy to bring down his government, and that the stand-off with the unions could have the effect of deferring the elections planned for 2009. He claimed his government did not have the money to restore the five per cent pay cut. But we wanted proof that the government had no money – there seemed to be plenty available for government ministers to take overseas trips at the taxpayers’ expense. In the first few days of the strike it looked as if we might get somewhere; interim
Minister for Labour Bernadette Rounds Ganilau kept promising that concessions would be made and that the dispute could be settled. She admitted that our strike was legal, but she was too intimidated by the interim prime minister to take action and make a decision in our favour, and so she kept delaying.

Whatever authority she had over industrial disputes was taken away from her by Bainimarama, who was determined that our strike should fail. Our initial request to government had been that they should restore the one per cent immediately, restore two per cent in December 2007 and the remaining two per cent in 2008, but once the strike began we went back to demanding the full five per cent. In the end, Bainimarama offered us one per cent, with further discussions to take place over the remaining four per cent. We had been down that road too many times before and we were not fooled. What that meant was nothing beyond one per cent. The truth was that, going back to 2003, we were actually owed a pay increase of 27 per cent. Talking to the media, I pointed out that there was a vast imbalance between the work we did and the amount we were paid, and I wanted to know why nurses always faced pay cuts when a military coup took place.

Mahendhra Chaudry blamed me, rather than the government, for the plight of the nurses, and said we should have sorted all this out with the Qarase government rather than raising the issue when finances were in a critical state. Fiji Human Rights Commission director Shaista Shameem said the right to life of patients, sick people and the elderly was more important than the right to strike, to which I replied that these were not normal times and that our hands had been forced by poor working conditions and low pay. Ultimately, I said, the right to life was the responsibility of the government, not of the nurses. The Methodist Church, possibly Fiji’s largest and most important institution outside government, refused to help the interim government when asked for assistance. Church president Reverend Laisiasa Ratabacaca said the government
was responsible for the situation and that the church would not interfere.

We had to tighten security at our headquarters in MacGregor Road because we thought the strike might attract people who would use our struggle for their own political purposes. Our concern, as I kept telling the media, related purely to nurses’ issues, and the interim government, which was in charge of the country, should not be surprised if all sorts of problems arose. ‘Every coup’, I pointed out, ‘sets a country back 10 years and I hope the prime minister doesn’t forget it’. On 2 August I told the media ‘We have reached day nine and now there is no turning back. Our members have indicated there is nothing stopping them from carrying on in order to get their five per cent back’. I called on the nurses who were still working to join the strike: ‘As long as some nurses remain in hospitals’, I said, ‘this fight will go on. If all members come out and sit, then we will prove to the interim government that nurses are vital in order to have the hospitals functioning. Nurses must unite and take industrial action’.

By 8 August, however, we realized that the interim government was willing to let Fiji’s hospitals and health system collapse rather than yield to our demands. We had held together for more than two weeks. We had strengthened each other at the picket sites with chain prayers and singing, and people had helped us, but we could not hold out indefinitely because we had no savings. Fiji’s nurses are not prosperous. It was impossible for them to accumulate sufficient savings to survive through a long-running strike.

Fijivillage News: The General Secretary of the Fiji Teachers Union Agni Deo Singh has revealed their plan to the civil servants where he has said that they will go on strike even if there is no strike ballot.

Although the law is clear that the public sector unions have to enter the negotiation process and go for a strike ballot when there is a deadlock, the unions are now calling on the workers to just walk off their jobs.

They can only go on strike if more than 50% of the members agree to walk out of their jobs.

The Confederation of Public Sector Unions which is made of the Fiji Public Service Association, Fiji Teachers Union, Fijian Teachers Association and Fiji Nursing Association, has 14,000 members.

The total number of civil servants is more than 28,000.

When asked by one of the members in the union rally at FTA Hall on what they will do if they do not get their way in the Employment Tribunal, FTU General Secretary Agni Deo Singh said everyone can just walk off their jobs.

170 members attended the rally in Suva on Tuesday.

The Confederation of Public Sector Unions says that they will challenge the decision made by the Registrar of Trade Unions that they cannot have the strike ballot until they exhaust all the negotiation processes with the government.

General Secretary Rajeshwar Singh says their matter will be heard by the Employment Tribunal on the 4th of October.

They wanted to have the strike ballot from this Tuesday to the 8th of October.

Fijivillage has been informed that the unions were planning to time the strike during the external exams for the students.

Update: Fiji Public Service Association files six motions with the Employment Tribunal

The Vice President of the Fiji Nursing Association Miliakere Nasorovakawalu says she wants 2,500 nurses to walk out of their jobs and then she will be willing to go to prison if the strike is declared illegal.

She told the union rally at the FTA Hall in Suva that she is willing to go to jail only if they get the mandate and more than 2,000 nurses walk out of the hospitals and other health facilities.

She also proposed that they should also get an open petition to get the sympathy of the public.

Under the law, the strike can only be legal after the negotiation process ends in a deadlock and the unions get a legitimate strike ballot where more than 50% of the members agree to go on strike.

SUVA, Fiji Islands (December 15, 1999 – Fiji Times)---Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has urged nurses to reconsider their ultimatum to go on strike over a pay issue.

Mr. Chaudhry said the Government understood the problems nurses faced and was looking at ways to resolve them.

"There is no need for any strike,'' Mr. Chaudhry said yesterday from Beijing, where he is on a week-long state visit.

"We understand and sympathize with their problems.

"I know they are one of the categories of government workers who need immediate attention.''

Mr. Chaudhry said a sub-committee had been formed to look into their grievances.

The Fiji Nurses Association is expected to hand in its notice of a trade dispute to the Ministry of Labour today or tomorrow.

President Elina Dulakiverata said a nationwide strike was inevitable because the ministry had done nothing to address their grievances.

"Our graduates start off on a $9,000 salary scale and after working for 20 to 25 years they retire with $11,000,'' she said.

(NOTE: F$ 1.978 = US$ 1.00 on December 15, 1999)

"We want to have our nurses start at $13,000 and then take the increment from there.''

Nurses are expected to walk out 28 days after filing a trade dispute.

One of the first promises made by Health Minister Doctor Isimeli Cokanasiga when he took up office was to review nurses' pay.

In response to Mr. Chaudhry's comments, Ms. Dulakiverata said nurses had waited long enough.

"How much longer are the nurses going to wait?'' she asked.

"Before it was removed, Chaudhry's government had already come into conflict with sections of the working class. One of its last acts before Speight's coup was to denounce and threaten legal action against striking nurses.

Faced with chronic understaffing and a flight of nurses overseas, the country's 1,300 nurses had demanded an annual starting salary of F$13,000 (US$6,711), an increase of F$4,000. After four months of failed negotiations between their union leaders and the Chaudhry government, the nurses walked out on strike on May 12.

Chaudhry and his ministers slandered the strikers as being part of a politically-orchestrated move by Rabuka's Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) party to bring the government to its knees. The government declared the strike illegal and organised strikebreakers. After two-and-a-half days the nurses returned to work with only a small pay increase.

Behind these attacks on the working class lay the commitment of the “People's Coalition” to implement the policies laid down by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Executive Board in October 1998.

In its review of the Fijian economy, the IMF noted a sharp fall in investment rates, from 25 percent during 1980-85 (before Rabuka's 1987 coup) to less than 13 percent in recent years. It criticised Rabuka's government for making “only limited headway on key structural issues that are hampering investment” and declared that “decisive action on many fronts could no longer be postponed”.

Among the IMF's key “reform” prescriptions were “wage restraint,” the acceleration of privatisation, complete financial and economic deregulation and “the need to curtail discretionary and unproductive spending and to reduce the public sector wage bill”.

These prescriptions formed the basis of the Chaudhry government's program"

In case you were wondering those nurses in Fiji are still defying the military government with their strike. And they aren't about to be bullied.

Striking nurses who were detained at the Nasova Police Academy yesterday have been released. The nurses were holding up placards when police and soldiers rounded them up.

Criminal Investigations Department director Aisea Navakamocea confirmed police had warned them before they were released.

The nurses were interviewed but no charges were laid.

The nurses are reported to have returned to the Fiji Nursing Association headquarters to continue protesting as they end the 14th day of their strike today.

The Fiji Nurses Association says that nurses will stand firm and will not be moved by statements made by Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama.

Fiji Nursing Association, General Secretary Kuini Lutua, who was one of those arrested, declared the nurses are mothers of the country and they will fight to the end.

Still, Lutua says they are looking forward to continue negotiations in trying to solve the impasse.

This is the longest ever strike action to [be] conducted by an essential services union in Fiji.

The following is from the Fiji Times.

Protesters walk free

TWENTY Fiji Nursing Association members were released late yesterday after being taken in for questioning by police for protesting outside Government Buildings where a Cabinet meeting was in progress.

Shortly before midday, security in and around Government Buildings was increased as reports filtered in of a protest there by nurses.

FNA members arrived in pairs with placards and stood across Gladstone Road from Government Buildings, with police and army personnel facing them.

The striking nurses were spread out along Gladstone Road in groups of two and silently held up their placards in the hope Cabinet ministers would see them.

FNA general secretary Kuini Lutua, who was part of the group, said the protesters wanted to show the interim Government that it needed to make a decision soon regarding their grievances.

"They have refused to meet us so we have come down now to show them that these are the messages that we want them to see," she said.

"We need them to make a decision for this country; make a decision for the nurses of this country.

"Nurses are public servants and if they care for this nation, they must care for the workers of this country."

She said they were abiding by the Public Order Act by standing in pairs but were ready to be taken in by police.

"We hope they will see our message; that they will see what we're trying to say because they have refused to talk to us."

The protesters were taken to the Police Academy where they were questioned by a team of officers.

Commissioner of Police Commodore Esala Teleni said last night the FNA members were not charged but their statements were taken by the investigators before they were warned.

"They were only warned verbally but we will keep the file open," he said.

"We understand that they're standing in small groups and holding placards but their motive is very clear."

Commodore Teleni said he felt his officers acted very well in dealing with the protesters.

"We were well aware of their plans to protest and when we were alerted by our intelligence unit, I personally sent a team led by a senior officer to convince them not to come to Government Buildings.

"I was briefed by the senior officer who said that he had warned them (against protesting at Government Buildings). They were verbally warned that it (protest) would be illegal"

Commodore Teleni said all along when the unions were planning to go on strike, police had been allowing that process to go through provided it was done within the ambit of the law.

He said he had personally made a plea in the media to those intending to go on strike and to all the people of Fiji to remain calm but despite that, the FNA members went ahead with their protest.

"But this is a warning and reminder to everyone that we will ensure that people are not intimidated or live in fear."

Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama said the protesting FNA members should have expected to be arrested by police.

"That's normal, you break the law, you get arrested," he said.

28 September 2017:

Among the faculty appointments that Banaras Hindu University Vice-Chancellor G C Tripathi tried to push through at a meeting of its Executive Council Tuesday was the regularisation of Dr O P Upadhyay’s appointment as Medical Superintendent of the Sir Sunderlal Hospital on the university campus.

One of the EC members objected, saying Upadhyay had been convicted of sexual harassment by a Fiji court.

The order, accessed by The Indian Express, records what a 21-year-old Fiji woman, who brought the charge against Upadhyay, said in her testimony before a magistrate at Nasinu in January 2013: “He (Upadhyay) held my hand and insisted I should see the house. When we reached his room, he said I should come and sleep in his room. It was in Indian Hindi. He held my shoulder… rubbed my thighs… and kissed my cheek again.”

This incident took place on August 25, 2012, months after Upadhyay moved to Fiji on deputation as Advisor to the Vice-Chancellor of Fiji National University (FNU).

The Nasinu magistrates court convicted Upadhyay of “indecent assault”. His counsel appealed in 2014 but the High Court of Fiji upheld the conviction order.

While holding Upadhyay guilty, the Nasinu magistrates court, in its order, said: “In this case, the accused first kissed her cheek. The victim thought that was a welcome kiss. The accused held her shoulder. Then accused invited to see his house, when they were walking the accused informed she can sleep with him in his house. Thereafter, the accused touched her breast and thighs. Touching the breast and thighs of an unknown firstly seen woman on that day clearly indicates indecent intention. This constitutes the indecent assault… When I evaluate the evidence, I have no doubt in my mind that the prosecution proved its charge beyond reasonable doubt.”

Contacted by The Indian Express Tuesday night, Upadhyay said: “The university (BHU) had taken legal opinion in my matter and it was decided that the decision of a court abroad does not hold good in our country. Hence, I was interviewed and selected by the selection committee. I was on study leave (in Fiji). It was a case of extortion and because I resisted, I was falsely accused.”

The Indian Express emailed a questionnaire to the Director of Prosecution in Fiji but there was no response until Wednesday night.

According to official records, Upadhyay filed an appeal through his counsel before the High Court of Fiji at Suva. In his appeal, he challenged the magistrate’s order and argued that the “sentence against the appellant is harsh and excessive in all circumstances of the case”. The hearing before the High Court took place on March 24, 2014 and the judgment was announced June 12, 2014.

In the order, the High Court judge said: “I have carefully read the court record and learned magistrate sentencing remarks. In my view, he applied the correct law and procedure. He identified the correct tariff of 1 to 4 years imprisonment for indecent assault. He identified the aggravating and mitigating factors. He started with 18 months imprisonment. In my view, the sentence was not harsh and excessive, and I accordingly dismiss this ground.”

After he returned to India, Upadhyay was handed charge as Medical Superintendent of Sir Sunderlal Hospital in April 2016. According to orders issued by the Registrar of BHU, Upadhyay was given additional charge since he was the most senior chief medical officer at the university.

A senior doctor at the BHU hospital has accepted he was tried for sexual harassment in Fiji but said he was framed as the woman wanted to extort money out of him.

An attempt by Banaras Hindu University vice chancellor GC Tripathi to secure a permanent tenure for Dr OP Upadhyay, the medical superintendent of Sir Sunderlal Hospital, created a stir as the university had last week witnessed student unrest over alleged sexual harassment of a hosteller.

At a meeting of the executive council on September 26 Tripathi proposed that Upadhyay, serving as the ad hoc medical superintendent, be regularised.

But an executive council member objected, saying Upadhyay had sexually harassed a 21-year-old woman when he was an adviser to the Fiji National University vice chancellor.

Tripathi, who is under immense pressure over his mishandling of the student protest and police crackdown that left a number of protesters, mostly women, injured, came under fire for overlooking the charges against Upadhyay.

Speaking to Hindustan Times on Wednesday, Upadhyay said, “In September 2012, allegation of sexual harassment was labelled against me by a 21-year-old girl as she wanted money and I denied complying with her demand.”

He said he was tried by a Fiji court.

“The court indicted me and said my conduct and behaviour would be observed for three years and assessed,” he said. The court said if his behaviour was found to be good and no such incident was repeated, “charges will be absolved,” Upadhyay claimed.

The university said he could continue working but due to some family problem he returned to India in August 2013, he said.

The Indian Express, however, had a different version. In a report on Thursday, the newspaper said the Nasinu magistrate’s court convicted Upadhyay of “indecent assault”. His counsel challenged the order in 2014 but the high court of Fiji upheld the conviction.

Upadhyay said he had worked hard to improve facilities and had ensures that medicines were made available at the hospital, which had angered the drug lobby that blowing the issue out of proportion.
The executive council member who raised objection was once removed for misappropriation of funds, he alleged.

Upadhyay then went on to say Indian law says an indictment in foreign land won’t have a bearing on a person’s career unless it affected diplomatic relations.

JD Wetherspoon [in the United Kingdom] has stopped automatically putting plastic straws in drinks, becoming the latest pub chain to put an end to the “wasteful” practice.

The pub chain says it will only use biodegradable paper straws from January 2018 in a move it claims will stop 70 million plastic straws entering landfill or making their way into the world’s oceans each year.

The announcement comes as a wider campaign known as Refuse the Straw gathers pace. It aims to stop pub chains and restaurants handing out the plastic straws which are thought to take up to 500 years to decompose.

Wetherspoon has joined All Bar One as well as smaller chains Oakman Inns and the Liberation Group, which stopped handing out plastic straws earlier this year.

Bars and restaurants have recently come under pressure from Refuse the Straw, which started in the US and is backed by designer Vivienne Westwood. It hopes that a simple change by pubs and restaurants will shift consumer behaviour by ending the expectation that a straw will be provided with every drink. 

A similar shift came in the UK after a 5p charge was introduced for plastic bags, resulting in an 85 per cent reduction in the number people use.

The Plastic Pollution Coalition which backs the campaign says more than 500 million single-use plastic straws are used each day in the US alone. 

What difference will it make?Much of the concern around throwaway plastic centres on the impact it has on the world’s oceans. This week, scientists discovered that plastic is now even polluting remote floes in the Arctic Ocean. Large pieces of plastics such as polypropylene and polystyrene break down into smaller pieces which are then consumed by marine wildlife and move up the food chain. A video that went viral earlier this year feature the grisly discovery that a sick beached whale had 30 plastic bags in its stomach.

Plastic pollution has consistently increased over the last 20 years and environmentalists say that plastic straws should be on our hit list, along with carrier bags, single-use plastic bottles and microbeads from cosmetics as items to ban. The Government announced a ban on the use of plastic microbeads in wash-off health and beauty products earlier this year and Scottish MPs announced a plastic bottle deposit scheme earlier this month but straws have so far evaded legislators’ crosshairs.

That should change, according to  Mark Hall of Busineswaste.co.uk who thinks consumers should pay a tax if they want a straw. Ultimately, plastic straws are unnecessary, he says.

“Why on earth do you need a straw in your gin and tonic anyway?” he told the BBC.

“The industry can do something about it, but so can we as consumers - it's easy to say 'no straw please'.” Source: The Independent (UK), 27 September 2017

Plastic Straws

An environmental hazard

500 million - plastic straws used every day in the US
70 million - plastic straws that will be saved by Wetherspoon's move
500 years - how long it takes for each straw to biodegrade
85 per cent - drop in the use of plastic bags after 5p charge introduced
30 - number of plastic bags found in the stomach of a whale in Norway

His lawyer, Devanesh Sharma stood up before Chief Magistrate Usaia Ratuvili and said that Doctor Reddy has reconsidered his rights and has decided to remain silent.

It was earlier confirmed that Reddy would be the only defence witness.

Both parties have been given time to file their closing written submissions.

The matter has been adjourned to 21st November for mention.

The judgement date has not been set as yet.

It is alleged that Doctor Mahendra Reddy, on or about 8th May this year, in Rakiraki, in order to influence the vote of Waisea Lebobo, the Manager of Ra High School, directly conferred or offered to confer a benefit namely a steady water source for Ra High School.

It is also alleged that Doctor Reddy on or about 8th May this year, in Rakiraki, interfered with the free exercise or performance of a political right of Waisea Lebobo that is relevant to the 2018 election.

Doctor Reddy has pleaded not guilty to one count of bribery and one count of undue influence.

The maximum penalty for each count upon conviction is a fine not exceeding $50,000 or a prison term not exceeding 10 years.

Minister of Health and Medical Services Rosy Akbar says people cannot expect to be treated like private patients while going to public facilities such as hospitals.

She made this comment while speaking during the Sai National Convention at the Ba Town Council Hall this morning.

Akbar says people coming with serious illnesses will be given priority. She urged people to be patient while waiting to be seen by doctors at public hospitals. She also says that their job as Ministers is not easy and it is not about the hefty pay which some people are commenting about.

The Health Minister says that people need to be patient and have faith in the Ministry.

Meanwhile Akbar says one of the quotes from the Sathya Sai Service Organisation of Fiji that intrigued her is to “Never turn anyone away from your door whether it is an animal or a human being” .

Akbar says this is important because it encompasses the very core value of love and compassion.

Akbar added that she came from a very poor background and has learnt a lot from it where she has moved on and helped others. She says people may accumulate a lot of properties but at the end of the day we have to realize that these are material things that hold no value. Akbar also says as a government they are trying to promote inclusivity, and not divisive society. Source: Fijivillage News, 23 September 2017