PHILIPSBURG--The new operating company of Pelican Resort can only trim the number of workers at the resort by adhering to dismissal laws, and not by using a bad-faith legal stratagem serving no other purpose than to rob employees of their right to employment protection, said attorney-at-law Maarten Le Poole on Thursday during the hearing of the injunction filed by Workers Institute for Organised Labour (WIFOL) against Simpson Bay Resort Management Company (SBRMC) BV and Royal Resort Management Company (RR) LTD.
The three-hour hearing was attended by WIFOL president Theophilus Thompson shop stewards, and dozens of union members, with many other members remaining outside due to lack of space in the courtroom.
Also present at the hearing was SBRMC's Chief Executive Officer Richard Corso.
Some 182 Pelican workers fear for their jobs since SBRMC took over the resort's management after it came into the hands of investment company Quantum Investment Trust (QIT) against a US $35 million loan.
Pelican Resort, now re-baptised Simpson Bay Resort and Marina, has been in dire financial straits since 1996.
According to WIFOL, all collective labour agreements (CLAs) closed on behalf of Pelican Resort workers are still valid and should be adhered to by parties, including the "new" management company.
The labour union also claimed that the operational management has in fact not changed, as it is still in the hands of RR, a Belize-based company operating three timeshare properties in the Caribbean.
According to WIFOL, only two things have changed after the resort was auctioned off in December 2010: the Tenants Association Pelican Resort Club (TAPRC) no longer exists and timeshare owners now make payments to the new owner.
"For the rest nothing has changed," said WIFOL's attorney Wim van Sambeek. "Until December 16, 2010, RR was manager of the resort, charged with authority over WIFOL members [working at the resort], and RR has remained such," with the management team also remaining unchanged.
RR sent a message to all timeshare owners two days after the auction, stating, "A representative of the new owner contacted Royal Resorts Management to continue in its capacity as resort manager until a new agreement can be executed. Royal has agreed in order to avoid disruption of resort operations."
According to attorney Le Poole, this meant that RR has been running the resort for the new owner as of that date.
"SBRMC has been founded by RR and is being controlled by Corso. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Both are tied to the CLA," said Van Sambeek. "If they wanted to lay off workers they should have filed a social plan with the Department of Labour, but they failed to do so."
The union's lawyers claimed that with the takeover RR managed to get the "troublesome" TAPRC out the door, while it also wanted to get rid of the employees, including those who had been working at the resort for as long as 20 to 25 years.
"The workers are in a state of utter confusion following some cosmetic changes which have not affected their terms of employment," Le Poole said.
According to WIFOL, the defendants should be adhering to the CLA, with the union entitled to payment of damages.
SBRMC and RR contested these claims. "WIFOL's position is incorrect," said attorney Jairo Bloem, who claimed the workers were still employed by Pelican Resort Management Company (PRMC), not by his clients.
Bloem said QIT had assigned RR to run the resort and to put an operational structure in place, not to circumvent labour laws.
"QIT could also have opted to close the resort, but opted for a continuation of operations based on socio-economic considerations. ... Timeshare owners wanted some surety. They wanted to know if they could still come to the island."
Judge Diederik Thierry, who presided over the hearing, wanted to know why the resort owner had not found other ways to downsize the company.
"If you want to downsize a company why not ask for permits for layoffs? Why leave the employers in an empty company and try to rehire them for a new company?" Judge Thierry asked.
According to Bloem, the new owners had deemed it impossible to hire all 180 employees under the same conditions and emoluments. "Several proposals to rehire staff were rejected, but rehiring all employees is unnecessary and not viable," he said. "The new owner has more than lived up to its social obligations. ... Offering full employment for 150 workers for a year is an example of being a good employer."
WIFOL said "no way" when employees were asked to sign new contracts with the new owner, WIFOL President Thompson said at the end of the hearing.
"Employees were under the impression that the CLA would be maintained and guaranteed. We're feeling betrayed. That's why we're here now," Thompson said.
"The resort cannot operate under the status quo or it would fall," Corso claimed. "We are all aware of the social impact we are facing in this difficult decision. We cannot disregard the law. ...
"I ask for wisdom and for what is right in getting a good decision," Corso pleaded with the judge, who will present his written decision on Tuesday, February 8.
Music TV BlackBurn Rovers United States Foreign currency Strictly Come Dancing Hotels
No comments:
Post a Comment