The Public Services Workers’ Union of TUC (Ghana) has rejected the implementation of a 35 per cent Laboratory Retention Allowance limited to a section of employees, warning that the move risks creating divisions and industrial tension within the institution.

The disagreement centres on a decision by management to apply the allowance, formerly known as the Laboratory Risk Allowance, exclusively to staff of the Centre for Laboratory Services and Research (CLSR), as part of efforts to retain skilled personnel and support plans to commercialise the unit.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the union said the issue was first raised during a Standing Negotiating Committee (SNC) meeting on February 5, 2026, where the union proposed a broader, graduated allowance structure that would benefit all staff rather than a unit-specific incentive.

However, at a subsequent SNC meeting on March 5, management maintained its position, explaining that the renamed allowance was targeted at retaining specialised staff within the CLSR.

The meeting ended without agreement, with the union indicating it would consult its members before taking a final position, while also urging management to reconsider.

Following an Emergency Divisional Executive Council meeting on March 12 and a General Staff meeting at the head office on March 19, the union formally communicated its stance, rejecting the selective implementation of the allowance.

According to the union, restricting the benefit to CLSR staff is “unacceptable,” although it expressed support in principle for the introduction of such an allowance if it is extended across the entire workforce.

The union has called for an urgent meeting to restructure the policy, arguing that the current approach raises concerns about fairness, due process, and the integrity of negotiations.

It cited what it described as a breach of good faith in the negotiation process, alongside potential risks including distorted compensation structures, selective incentives, and challenges in staff retention across other units.

The union also questioned the timing of the implementation and pointed to the absence of clear benchmarks guiding the decision.

As part of its proposed way forward, the union has urged management and the governing board to revisit the policy and reconvene an emergency SNC meeting to address the concerns raised.

It warned that failure to do so could lead to “unintended industrial disharmony.”

The union has requested a formal response from management by April 6, 2026, to guide its next course of action.