The Tribune

Trade unions have been urged not to “throw a child’s tantrum” over the Sandals situation, the Chamber of Commerce’s chairman warning against any strike action that would “cripple” businesses.

Gowon Bowe told Tribune Business that the Chamber, and wider private sector, would not support any industrial action that would “disrupt economic productivity”.

And he warned the trade union movement, and workers in general, to remember that there would be no need for either if businesses did not exist.

Responding to union hints that they will launch widespread industrial action after the Attorney General blocked the private prosecution of Sandals Royal Bahamian, and its management, from proceeding, Mr Bowe reiterated that a thriving economy and private sector was the best form of protection for workers’ rights.

“We are not supportive of any action that disrupts economic productivity,” the Chamber chairman told Tribune Business.

“We have continually said that without the private sector there will be no need for unions and worker representatives.

“Crippling businesses by virtue of industrial action, while this may not be in the forefront of their [union] minds or psyche, is counter-intuitive and counter-productive.”

Obie Ferguson, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) leader, was joined by his National Congress of Trade Union (NCTU) counterpart, John Pinder, in previously warning that the labour movement was prepared to “shut the country down” with a repeat of the 1958 General Strike unless their grievances over the 600 Sandals Royal Bahamian terminations were not resolved.

The likelihood of this threat being translated into action increased last week, after it came to light that Allyson Maynard-Gibson, the Attorney General, had ordered the magistrate’s court to discontinue the prosecution launched against Sandals Royal Bahamian and its senior executives by five union officers.

The ‘nolle prosequi’ directive, which was signed on August 15, 2016, was only disclosed last week. Its existence was withheld from union leaders for five-six weeks, even though during that time they were engaged in meetings with the Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers - including Mrs Maynard-Gibson - in a bid to resolve the Sandals situation and other labour disputes.

With the unions feeling betrayed and deceived by the Government, especially since the ‘nolle prosequi’ was signed the very same day that the Sandals staff were terminated, the TUC’s Mr Ferguson promised there would be a “reaction” to Mrs Maynard-Gibson’s move.

He added that the unions were now “forced to do something, even if we don’t want to do it,” solely for “the preservation of the workers of this country”.

Mr Bowe, though, warned that any industrial action would be “counter to the protection of workers’ rights, because you’re disrupting economic activity, and when you do that, there’s no need for employees”.

He told Tribune Business: “We have to be careful about threatening island-wide or country-wide shut downs or industrial action each time we don’t like the outcome.

“It’s akin to throwing a tantrum and hoping the parent gives in.”

Mr Bowe acknowledged that there was “significant tension brewing between the unions and certain hotel properties” as a result of recent developments in the Sandals situation, but called on all sides “to be peaceful and responsible”, and negotiate in a bid to resolve their differences.

Pointing out that the court system and National Tripartite Council were appropriate forums for resolving such disputes, Mr Bowe said Bahamians had to be mindful that as an international, service-based economy, the world’s eyes were watching how this nation dealt with labour relations and other issues as they arose.

“It may not seem like a palatable reason, but in reality employees have as much responsibility to protect the viability of a company as the shareholders themselves,” Mr Bowe told Tribune Business.

“They are a key stakeholder. There sometimes has to be a re-education of workers for them to understand that without the employer there will be nothing for them to do. They certainly have to see themselves as not opposing what the business is trying to do.”

Mrs Maynard-Gibson, in her statement responding to the controversy surrounding her ‘nolle prosequi’, said the Government was encouraging Sandals Royal Bahamian to enter industrial agreement negotiations with the Bahamas Hotel, Maintenance and Allied Workers Union (BHMAWU).

That union was recognised as the bargaining agent for the resort’s line staff back in 2009, but its efforts to get Sandals Royal Bahamian and its management to the negotiating table have been repeatedly frustrated.

The resort, as Mrs Maynard-Gibson has pointed out, currently has a Judicial Review action before the Supreme Court challenging the BHMAWU’s very basis of existence.

And, with the wholesale staff termination likely having removed several union members, it is unclear whether the BHMAWU still has the strength to be recognised as the bargaining agent.

Given this backdrop, it is difficult to see what leverage the Government has, other than moral suasion, with Sandals Royal Bahamian over industrial agreement negotiations.

Still, Mrs Maynard-Gibson said: “Civil proceedings are continuing in the Supreme Court between the Bahamas Hotel, Maintenance and Allied Workers Union and Sandals in relation to the continued existence of the union, and whether Sandals should be obliged, in the circumstances, to negotiate with the union.

“Another action is before the Supreme Court on the matter of whether the Sandals employees were unfairly dismissed..... Persons are being held accountable through the legal process in the Supreme Court, where appropriate sanctions are available.”

She added: “One of the objectives being pursued by the Government in meetings with Obie Ferguson and other trade unionists was the attempt to encourage Sandals to negotiate an industrial agreement notwithstanding the Supreme Court action.

“The entering of the said ‘nolle prosequi’ does not prevent, nor does it compromise, further meetings and continued efforts of the Minister of Labour, or anyone else in the Government, in relation to this goal and a successful outcome.”