Cherry-picked rules, neglected staff: GECOM under scrutiny

Dear Editor,

I refer to GECOM’s response published in your March 27, 2026 edition. While the commission attempts to dismiss concerns raised by employees, it has once again failed to address the lived realities of its staff—realities which were also highlighted in letters published by Stabroek News and your newspaper in the past where permanent staff described an unsafe, demoralising, and stressful working environment. Regrettably, many of those conditions remain unchanged.

GECOM’s response suggests that no concerns were raised internally. This ignores a simple and uncomfortable reality: employees are often reluctant to raise concerns where the very source of those concerns is the leadership itself. In such an environment, fear of victimisation is real. And where employees believe there is no meaningful avenue for redress particularly where the chairman appears to consistently support the CEO—silence must never be mistaken for satisfaction. Currently there is no commission as such this means less voices to hear these concerns. There’s no ACEO nor DCEO. The powers are in all one man’s hand.

The response also points to the CEO’s visits to registration offices as evidence of engagement. But this too must be placed in context. Those visits came only after he had already spent years in office, and only after letters were published publicly exposing staff concerns. That reactive posture does not disprove the issues raised; rather, it lends further weight to them.

If GECOM is so certain that staff welfare is being prioritised, then let some simple questions be answered publicly:

How many staff have resigned since the current CEO assumed office?

When last was staff welfare truly made a priority?

Compulsory weekend training without clear compensation is not staff welfare. A poor working environment is not staff welfare. The absence of toiletries in offices is not staff welfare. The failure to meaningfully recognise long-serving employees is not staff welfare. The meagre assistance given in cases where staff have died while serving the institution is not staff welfare.

Workers observe other organisations valuing employees who have given years of service. At GECOM, many staff feel they are treated like robots—expected to produce, comply, and remain silent, but seldom appreciated. Not even a genuine expression of thanks is routinely extended to many who carry the institution daily.

We looked at other organisations honour their employees on Men’s Day, Women’s Day etc. Here nothing! Even national holidays have been reduced to merely dressing the building and wearing clothes. There’s no substance.

The issue of uniforms and allowances also exposes the hollowness of the claim that staff welfare is a priority. Under this current CEO, staff reportedly went the entire last year without uniforms. This year, what existed has been reduced even further, with only limited provision. That is not employee care. If management wishes to speak of order, professionalism, and standards, then it must also ensure that employees are properly equipped and supported. Welfare cannot be spoken of in lofty language while even basic uniform provisions and related allowances are neglected or reduced. The cost for sewing uniforms has to be borne by staff despite an imposition of design etc. Another unnecessary cost for workers.

There is also a troubling culture of micromanagement and needless bureaucracy. Even time-off can become an exhausting process. Yet while management is eager to boast about returning funds to the Consolidated Fund, it appears far less interested in pursuing long-discussed matters such as pension, gratuity, and broader staff benefits. That too says much about priorities.

On the issue of legality, GECOM’s response relies heavily on selective references to the Public Service Rules. The commission points to those rules to justify reducing sick leave from 28 days to 14 days. But it refuses to confront the central point: it is not sound employment practice to unilaterally alter established terms and conditions of employment after contracts have already been signed and relied upon by employees. If staff were employed on the basis of an established practice of 28 days’ sick leave, then abruptly reducing that benefit is not a minor administrative tidying-up exercise. This is breach of contract to amend terms and conditions of contract during performance without consultation- the chairman ought to have guided him on this very basic legal practice. It is a material change affecting the employee. If the organisation wants to now follow this public service rule, then it ought to follow others.

But the bigger issue is this:

If GECOM wants to rely on the Public Service Rules, then it must apply them fully—not selectively.

Let us look at those same rules:

• H23 – Private Business Leave: Staff do not benefit from this in any meaningful way.
• H32 – Compassionate Leave: Instead of being treated as a distinct entitlement, it is often restricted or absorbed into limited allowances that is 7 per year.
• H22 – Examination Leave: Exists in the rules, but not consistently supported in practice, lumped in the same category of 7 days special leave per year.
• H25 & H27 – Conference and Cultural Leave: Virtually non-existent in GECOM’s operations.

The rules treat these as separate entitlements. GECOM does not.

So how can the commission speak about compliance?

Then we come to training.

Public Service Rule E03 says training is duty.

The same selective approach is seen in the matter of compulsory weekend training. Public Service Rule E03 treats training as duty. If training is duty, then it should be treated as such—within normal working hours, or with appropriate compensation where it occurs outside of them. Staff should not be compelled to spend an entire weekend day in training, outside the usual workweek, with no proper clarity as to whether they are being paid, granted time-off in lieu, or given any flexibility. That is not fairness. That is imposition.

The rule book can’t just something “duty” and then treat it like voluntary unpaid time by agency who wants to follow it.

This pattern exists elsewhere:

Vacancy procedures exist—yet questions remain about how positions are filled. Check the registration officers if any of these rules were followed for filling vacancies. This itself would reveal if the media pursue an interesting story.

Pension provisions exist—yet many staff have no pension or only those on contract gets gratuity. If GECOM truly cares or “prioritises” employees, why hasn’t this long-standing concern not addressed?

Working hours are defined—but staff are required to go beyond them when there are special operations yet heavily penalise for lateness.

Rules regarding promotion and seniority are cited in the rule book, but staff continue to observe decisions that create perceptions of favoritism. Rules on vacancies exist, yet questions remain as to whether those procedures were followed consistently in registration offices. Pension and gratuity remain unresolved for many employees. Leave provisions such as private business leave, compassionate leave, examination leave, conference leave, and cultural leave are not always treated as distinct entitlements in practice. Working hours are fixed in the rules, but GECOM regularly requires work beyond traditional public service patterns when it suits operational needs. The point is simple: either the rule book is to be followed in a coherent and fair manner, or it must not be cherry-picked for convenience.

This is why the issue is not merely one of legality in the abstract. It is one of selective compliance, unequal treatment, and managerial convenience dressed up as administrative order.

If GECOM wishes to invoke the Public Service Rules, then it must be prepared to apply them consistently and not only where they are restrictive. The same rule book speaks to promotion criteria, seniority, filling of vacancies, pension-related issues, leave categories, working hours, uniforms, and other staff benefits. Yet staff know well that these provisions are not always followed with the same enthusiasm.

To describe such concerns as “mischief” is unfortunate. Employees who speak about fear, frustration, declining morale, lack of benefits, lack of recognition, weekend impositions, poor welfare conditions, neglected uniform provisions, and inconsistent application of rules are not undermining GECOM. They are calling attention to what is wrong within it.

GECOM is a constitutional institution charged with protecting democracy. It cannot credibly do so while fostering an environment in which its own staff feel unheard, unsupported, and selectively managed.

The question therefore remains: will GECOM apply its rules fairly, fully, and consistently, including where employees benefit, or will it continue to invoke legality only when it is convenient to management?

Until that question is answered in practice, these concerns will not disappear.