PHILIPSBURG--In what may seem to be a review exercise, Workers Institute for Organised Labour (WIFOL) lawyers once again requested that the Judge in the Court of First Instance order Royal Resorts (RR) Management Company Ltd. and Simpson Bay Resort Management Company NV (SBRMC) to adhere to all stipulations of the collective labour agreement (CLA) with former Pelican Resort Club workers.
This new court action, which started Friday, is a so-called procedure on the merits, which differs from the summary procedures tried last year.
The previous procedures were less extensive and did not allow the Court to weigh fully all evidence presented by both parties. It also will be possible to hear witnesses, which is not possible in an injunction.
WIFOL lawyers Wim van Sambeek and Maarten Le Poole of HBN Law claimed during Friday's hearing that pending the outcome of the court case on the merits RR and SBRMC should be bound by the Pelican CLA, should respect all stipulations therein and should pay WIFOL members in accordance with this CLA.
After the auction of Pelican Resort Club in December 2010, a conflict ensued about the labour conditions of 182 employees. New owner SBRMC did not believe itself obligated to adhere to the Pelican CLA, because it maintained that it was not unified with the former Pelican Resort Club Management Company NV (PRCMC), and therefore not responsible for the workers' labour arrangements and conditions as agreed with PRCMC.
WIFOL lawyers claim that the resort is playing games with the workers. "Some 37 workers were re-hired under worse labour conditions and the others replaced by temporary workers and cheap labour from abroad," attorney Van Sambeek said, a malpractice about which the union had filed a complaint with the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
WIFOL members are currently without work and income, while RR is refusing to open negotiations to rehire them, according to the union lawyers.
Attorney-at-law Jairo Bloem stated on behalf of SBRMC that the union "cannot have its cake and eat it too," claiming the union could not ask the court for a temporary provision concerning the CLA and wages while the court case on the merits still had to run its course.
According to Bloem, there is little chance of WIFOL winning this case and adjudging the claim would have "disastrous consequences" for the resort. Bloem said the fixed labour cost alone, without bonuses, would add NAf. 1.5 million per year extra to the already existing deficit.
SBRMC's lawyer said WIFOL members were not interested in work, but only in payouts according to the CLA. He pointed at the fact that only 37 of the 182 workers had signed new labour contracts, whereas the resort had offered 91 workers jobs against payment of their former salaries, but without emoluments and extras.
Dismissal of 49 workers was requested at the Labour Department. All parties involved, including Judge René van Veen, were surprised that no decision on this request had been made to date.
Attorney Maarten Le Poole explained why WIFOL had decided to refrain from launching a so-called cassation appeal case with the High Court in The Hague. He said that while he was positive about the outcome of such an appeal, a ruling was not to be expected until after 18-24 months.
A positive outcome would have led to the High Court referring the injunction back to the Court of Appeals, which would have meant an almost two-year delay before the court case on the merits could be handled. This had led WIFOL to drop the cassation case and file a court case on the merits instead.
On Friday, February 23, Judge van Veen will give his answer to the question whether SBRMC should adhere temporarily to CLA provisions and wages.
Australia cricket team Newspapers Mikel Arteta Lisa Allardice Francesca Panetta US supreme court
No comments:
Post a Comment