The Tribune

THE launch of an investigation into Atlantis after its president dared to express an opinion seems to be a staggering over-reaction.

The situation dates back to March – when Audrey Oswell, who is both the president and managing director of the resort, spoke up over unanswered questions about the neighbouring beach club planned by Royal Caribbean. She urged Bahamians to call on the government to “put the brakes on” the project.

Then, in April, in a letter to Atlantis staff, she urged workers to “make their voices” heard on the project.

In the letter, she said: “The potential impact on our beaches, marine life and water supply could be devastating if the appropriate environmental controls and practices are not carefully planned and executed. As the leader of tourism for The Bahamas and long-time stewards of the ocean and its marine life, caring for the environment has become part of our DNA. It is at the core of who we are and what we do.”

At the time, union leaders reacted cautiously, wanting more information – and answering that if the company wanted unions to march with placards, maybe company leaders should do so first.

Now perhaps some might say that Atlantis was ill advised to call on its staff to raise their voices – but it seems remarkable that would attract the attention of the Department of Labour.

That has been the case – with Labour Minister Keith Bell saying that an investigation had been launched after getting “a number of complaints” from employees. He said people made “allegations of undue influence being placed on them in respect to statements made by a senior executive”.

He added: “The complaints came following statements made by a senior vice president with respect (to) Royal Caribbean investment that’s about to take place or that we have approved on Paradise Island. A number of persons made complaints. Therefore, we are looking at them to determine the authenticity of the complaints.”

And so off the department staff marched, to ask employees at Atlantis if they had been asked to lobby against RCI’s plan or if they felt intimidated or obligated to do so – even asking if they felt they would be fired if they did not.

We have never noticed in all the years of reporting on Atlantis that the union would be shy about any issues they encountered in dealing with management – and we suspect if there was any such threat, they would have spoken loudly against it.

Can business leaders not speak up on issues in this manner? If Atlantis, having not had its questions answered over its concerns, cannot speak up about a neighbouring project that has the potential to impact their own business without risking government investigations, where is free speech in our nation?

If one were to presume the worst about the RCI development – and this is for the purposes of speculation only – any effect it might have on the environment might reduce the appeal of Atlantis to visitors, and that could mean reduced income and potentially lost jobs. Now it may not be to that extent at all – but that could be the concern that Atlantis managers want addressed. It could be their own jobs that staff members protect by calling for answers.

If a company is failing to live up to its heads of agreement, or if there is genuine bullying in the workplace or safety issues, then absolutely there are reasons to launch an investigation – but doing so because a company leader dares to open their mouth and speak on an issue is repressive, to say the least.

We would say that the government needs to step carefully if it doesn’t want to be seen as overly interfering – but it looks as if things have already gone one step too far.

Status quo

Fred Mitchell has once again argued passionately for The Bahamas to become a republic, with its own head of state rather than acknowledging the British monarch.

This comes after a trip to London to see the coronation of King Charles III – a trip that saw Mr Mitchell join the delegation.

In today’s Tribune, we report that National Security Minister Wayne Munroe said there are “much more things of substance” to consider instead.

If the PLP chairman cannot even convince ministers in his own party’s government that the matter is worth discussing, then we can safely say this is not a debate that is going to happen any time soon.