PHILIPSBURG--Having won a third case against Simpson Bay Resort Management Company (SBRMC), President of the WIFOL Theophilus Thompson called on the company to "end this war" and "get people back to work" in the best interest of the economy and image of St. Maarten. He also called on government to take a more active role in the situation.
Thompson said the union would make first contact with SBRMC to re-establish dialogue that would hopefully result in re-employment of the workers.
He also expressed hope that SBRMC would not prolong the impasse via appeal or otherwise, but had those hopes dashed when attorney representing SBRMC Jairo Bloem indicated that the company would appeal the court's decision (see related story). The move did not surprise Thompson, considering "their attorney stated even before we went to court that they would take us to the Supreme Court if they had to."
In the meantime, Thompson said he could not tell the workers to go back on the job and expect the employer to take them back. Although the workers won the case, he said, the employer still has the right to keep the workers away from the premises. With an appeal pending, the workers can expect the status quo to remain in place.
"In light of everything that has happened over the last almost two years, I think the workers' rights have been restored. That is important for the workers and union representing workers in the service sector, and I think that this decision has far-reaching effects beyond the borders of Simpson Bay Resort," Thompson said.
"Workers in other establishments and companies can feel comfortable and the fear and suspense that has hung over them for the past months have now been taken away," he added, re-iterating his previous statements that the CLA between the workers and the resort had to be respected.
"In the verdict from the very first court case we won, the judge emphasized that the CLA had to be respected by the company. What was good about our CLA is that parties, present employer and owner (of Simpson Bay Resort) and union, agreed on a clause that states that the CLA, as long as it is valid, is binding, even upon successors," Thompson said.
"In this case," he continued, "you can hardly say there is a successor. The people who signed the CLA are the same people in management of the company and the same people executing orders to the employees. So it was confusing to us how they could claim they were not responsible for the employees anymore and the CLA was not respected by this 'new' company."
With regard to persons the resort has hired in the meantime to fill positions, Thompson explained that the resort, even when it operated as Pelican, had never been overstaffed based on the requirements of service. The permanent employees, he said, were never sufficient to meet the demand for service.
"That's why they always had, in agreement with the union, a minimum number of persons performing temporary service. So even if all workers go back, it will not create an over-employment situation. And they still have employment agencies providing them with labour," he said.
International criminal justice Equality Discrimination at work The far right European football Energy
No comments:
Post a Comment