The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The ‘11th hour’ bid to intervene in the City Markets pension fund controversy was yesterday branded “fanciful at best”, as arguments over who is representing the former supermarket chain’s workers and beneficiaries intensified.

Dennis Williams, the attorney for the Bahamas Commercial Stores, Supermarkets and Warehouse Workers Union, which purports to act for 341 pension plan beneficiaries, claimed the move by a former City Markets official and his attorney would lead workers “down the garden path” rather than produce a resolution.

But Whanslaw Turnquest, City Markets’ former chief inventory control officer, and his attorney have filed a May 22, 2015, affidavit with the court alleging that some 231 ex-City Markets employees want them to represent their interests in the battle to secure due severance and pension payments.

The affidavit, and other documents seen by Tribune Business, carry the names and signatures of ex-staff requesting that Mr Turnquest and his attorney, Rouschard Martin of Martin, Martin & Co, represent their rights.

The document signed by the former City Markets employees states: “I/we as a former employee (with severance/pension entitlement or both) hereby acknowledge and agree, by our signature below, to have Whanslaw Turnquest as plaintiff representing us in this or any action, and to have our attorney, Rouschard Martin of Martin, Martin & Co, represent us in this or any action for the purpose of protecting our rights, title and interest.”

Mr Turnquest told Tribune Business yesterday that “most of the beneficiaries are not union members”, so it could therefore not act or negotiate on their behalf in the battle to get 100 per cent of their pension entitlement.

“Two hundred and thirty-one persons have indicated they don’t want the union representing them or acting on their behalf.” Mr Turnquest added.

That, though, was contradicted by Mr Williams in his e-mail to Tribune Business, which argued that the union “represents the vast majority of the beneficiaries” - a figure he put at 341.

However, both Mr Turnquest and Mr Martin challenged the assertion carried in yesterday’s Tribune Business by another attorney, James Thompson, that he remained the ‘attorney of record’ for another group of ex-City Markets staff.

Mr Turnquest, who chairs a 40-strong group called the Bahamas Supermarkets Former Employees’ committee, has filed an application with the Supreme Court for Mr Martin to be listed as the ‘attorney of record’ for the former employees he purports to represent.

This is an attempt to remove Mr Thompson from the case, but he previously told Tribune Business: “Just because they’ve filed a motion doesn’t mean there’s a change. As far as I’m concerned, I’m still the attorney of record.”

Mr Thompson is challenging Mr Turnquest’s move via a May 22, 2015, application to the Supreme Court for permission to cross-examine him. He is alleging that Mr Turnquest’s April 10 affidavit “is in substance false, and contains false statements, and was intended to mislead” the Supreme Court.

However, Mr Turnquest yesterday alleged that the 231 signatures attached to his May 22 affidavit showed that the pension plan beneficiaries, and other workers, wanted to be represented by himself and Mr Martin - not Mr Thompson or the union.

And he told Tribune Business that the 10 former workers named as plaintiffs in the case against the pension fund that was initiated by Mr Thompson have all signed that they want to switch to Mr Martin’s legal representation - something he said was shown by the signatures attached to the affidavit.

Mr Williams, though, backed Mr Thompson’s position and the comments made by the latter in Monday’s Tribune Business.

Mr Williams said the union, headed by president Rosalie McKenzie and its general secretary, Donna Moss, “been negotiating around the clock to settle with the principals of City Markets and attorneys of all interested parties under its umbrella” for the past two years.

He added that the union “takes grave exception to the contradictory and reckless statement” made by Mr Martin over the legal representation issue, and said: “This union administration was always in the picture from its assent to office.

“The union is concerned about getting persons paid a settlement which the court and all parties would find reasonable to solve this long outstanding problem.”

He then referred to the deal that saw that City Markets’ last principals, the Finlayson family, exchange the staff pension plan’s ownership of the company’s head office for preference shares in their Associated Bahamian Distillers and Brewers (ABDAB) company.

“The union is not interested in chasing behind buildings and equipment that will be difficult to sell, or litigation which would be costly to the beneficiaries and cause them to lose most of their entitlements,” Mr Williams told Tribune Business.

“The firm and constant position was always to place the beneficiaries in a position for a lump sum payment, which would be a better option than what the pension plan rules would allow.

“We are sure that if a beneficiary has to make a choice to follow behind a cash payment, or an old building or pipes, the choice would be clear.”

Mr Williams described the intervention by Mr Turnquest and his committee colleagues, in which they are seeking to overturn the January 15, 2015, settlement ‘consent Order’, as “fanciful at best”

He argued that Mr Turnquest and his committee, who are seeking to be named as plaintiffs and appoint Mr Martin as ‘attorney of record’, were not recognised.

“We would add that the union is on the ground with its members, who appear to have received some misleading information about the plan and the proposed settlement,” Mr Williams said, adding that a settlement was “on the horizon”.

“Our experience indicates that in industrial relations, whenever the vast majority seeks an acceptable and reasonable holistic settlement in a matter, there is always a faction.... selling dreams that are unrealistic and playing on the emotions of individuals who may have suffered some injustice, and the City Markets pension matter is no different.

“Obviously, in the present circumstances the union will not sit idly by and allow the beneficiaries who they represent to be led down the garden path by individuals who have no industrial relations experience, and may more than likely produce an outcome that is adverse to the interest of the beneficiaries.

“History is on the union’s side because they are not interested in antics or publicity; just getting their members paid.”