The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A leading labour attorney yesterday made “a public plea” for Sandals Royal Bahamian to negotiate an industrial agreement, saying there were “no ifs, ands and buts” about the workers’ desire for trade union representation.

Obie Ferguson, who is also the Trades Union Congress’s (TUC) president, urged the all-inclusive resort to negotiate with the Bahamas Hotel, Maintenance and Allied Workers Union “in good faith”, arguing that this was in “the best interest” of both parties and the wider Bahamas.

Mr Ferguson was speaking after the Supreme Court on Monday removed a previously-granted injunction that prevented the union from striking, after finding that Sandals Royal Bahamian could not use the Industrial Relations Act for this purpose (see other Article on Page 1B).

Acting Justice Ian Winder, though, gave the West Bay Street resort a 21-day window in which to appeal his ruling to the Court of Appeal, granting it “a limited interim injunction” that prevents strike action while this process plays out.

Mr Ferguson, who represented the Bahamas Hotel, Maintenance and Allied Workers Union as its attorney in the matter, yesterday told Tribune Business that industrial action was not inevitable simply because members had voted in favour of a strike.

Explaining the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mr Ferguson said: “Most importantly, it lays the groundwork for the union to strike if necessary after 21 days, if that is the route the union wants to take.

“That is open, but a strike vote in favour of a strike is not a strike, and it doesn’t necessarily mean there will be a strike.”

He added: “I am making a public plea to the company that they should meet with the union to negotiate a new industrial agreement.

“It will amount to union busting if they fail to do what they are required to do. The workers want this union, no ifs, ands and buts about that.

“I’d advise them [Sandals] that the union and company meet to begin the process of constructive and meaningful negotiations. It would be in the interests of the hotel, the interests of the union, and the interests of the country.”

Seemingly trying to strike a conciliatory tone, Mr Ferguson said Sandals Royal Bahamian had already been “treating with the union”.

He pointed to a labour-related dispute that erupted at the hotel yesterday, adding that both it and the union worked together to successfully resolve the matter.

“There are two issues: Not giving union officers access to the membership on property, and the failure to negotiate in good faith,” Mr Ferguson told Tribune Business.

“We’re trying to say to them that there need not be a strike to achieve that. I would invite the executive management of the hotel to meet with the union, and sit down and negotiate an industrial agreement, because the union has the unqualified support of the workers.”

Sandals Royal Bahamian has been refusing to negotiate with the union due to issues cited in a separate Judicial Review action, which is currently before the Court of Appeal, having been granted extra time to overturn a previous Supreme Court verdict.

In that action, the all-inclusive resort is challenging the “very basis” for the union’s existence, and seeking a court order that will force the Registrar of Trade Union’s to cancel its registration.

Sandals Royal Bahamian’s case is that the union has breached the Industrial Relations Act on two counts - failing to hold nominations for its executive positions, and the non-publication of its annual returns.

And it is alleging that the Registrar of Trade Unions (the director of labour), despite discovering these irregularities himself and giving the union two months to correct the problems, has failed to take action over the union’s continued non-compliance.

The other thrust of Sandals Royal Bahamian’s action is that the union’s executives were not elected in accordance with the union’s constitution, and it is therefore seeking a Supreme Court declaration that they have no authority to act on its behalf.

Apart from the union’s entire existence being in question, the resort’s position is that it is impossible to negotiate with persons who may not have been lawfully elected, and thus may have no authority to bind the union in an industrial agreement.

The Court of Appeal has yet to hear the merits of the Judicial Review action, and Sandals Royal Bahamian had sought the strike-barring injunction on the grounds that it might “render nugatory” that case.

Sandals Royal Bahamian and its attorneys, Lennox Paton, had argued that any strike action would breach the Industrial Relations Act. This prevents strike action related to a trade dispute, if the matter is before the Industrial Tribunal or Court of Appeal.

However, Acting Justice Winder said this route was not available to Sandals as a basis for the injunction, because the Judicial Review did not originate from a trade dispute filed with the Industrial Tribunal.

And he also ruled that the injunction should be lifted because the impact of preventing workers exercising their rights outweighed any damage to Sandals Royal Bahamian.

Mr Ferguson said the ruling backed his and the union’s submission, which was that Section 77 in the Industrial Relations Act was designed for trade disputes that made their way from the Labour Board all the way to the Tribunal.

“This injunction, in our view, ought not to have been granted,” he added. “There is no trade dispute before the Court of Appeal. To get an injunction to restrain the union from what it is legally entitled to, the effect of that would be to damage the union, and there is no legitimate case for doing so.

“There’s no relationship between the Judicial Review that is presently filed with the Court of Appeal, and the application for leave to have that matter heard, and the trade dispute filed on March 5, 2013.”

Describing Sandals’ original injunction application as “ill-conceived”, Mr Ferguson said it would “be wrong” to prevent a trade union following through with industrial action if all legal processes had been followed.

The TUC president also took issue with Sandals’ allegations that the union represented less than 50 per cent of its workforce.

Noting that the resort employed more than 700 persons, Mr Ferguson said the union, Sandals and Ministry of Labour had agreed that the bargaining unit numbered 358 when the January 30, 2014, strike vote was held.

Some 187 out of 193 voters cast their ballots in favour of strike action.

Sandals Royal Bahamian declined to comment when contacted by Tribune Business last night.