The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

PRIME Minister Philip “Brave” Davis said all former Grand Lucayan workers have been paid what the Government believes they are owed, insisting the outstanding severance controversy is a dispute over the amounts some former employees say they should receive.

His comments come after former managers complained that they were still awaiting severance after rejecting packages they said were substantially below calculations prepared by the Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association.

“All of the workers’ funds have been paid,” Mr Davis said. “It’s not that they haven’t been paid; some of them are just questioning the amount being paid, and that is a dispute.”

He said the government has already paid the amounts it calculated were due.

The government terminated 279 Grand Lucayan employees in February as preparations continued for the resort’s redevelopment by Concord Wilshire.

Former workers began collecting severance cheques later that month, but disputes over the calculations quickly emerged.

The disagreement has persisted among some former managers. Earlier this month, former senior security coordinator Jerry Davis and former customer service manager Patsy Hepburn said they rejected the packages offered to them because the figures were substantially below calculations prepared by the Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association.

Mr Davis, who worked at the resort from 2015 until his redundancy in February, said the hotel calculated his package at about $60,000, while the union calculated that he was entitled to substantially more.

He said the prolonged dispute had left him struggling to meet his mortgage and household expenses while supporting his three-year-old daughter and 84-year-old mother.

Ms Hepburn, who worked at the resort for 26 years, also rejected the amount offered to her.

“All we asking for is our proper severance,” she said earlier this month. “That’s all we are asking for so we could live.”

The former managers have also said they did not receive gratuity payments they believe they are owed.

Mr Davis’s comments put the Government’s position at odds with the former employees’ characterisation of the matter: the administration considers the required payments made, while the affected workers maintain that the amounts offered fall short of their entitlements.