The Tribune

By NATARIO McKENZIE

Tribune Business Reporter​

nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net​

Lucayan Renewal Holdings Ltd (LRHL) chairman Michael Scott yesterday said it was a "calculated conspiracy to embarrass the board" to suggest that the entity was suing the government in its recent Industrial Tribunal proceedings.​

He was responding to comments by attorney Obie Ferguson regarding proceedings recently filed by LRHL with the Industrial Tribunal seeking constitutional relief in regards to a trade dispute filed by the former Hotel Union with the tribunal in 2017. ​

While the attorney general, the vice-president of the Industrial Tribunal and the minister of labour are listed as respondents, as pointed out by Mr Ferguson, Mr Scott stated that for LRHL it was "not contentious" but a "friendly action" and the board was not suing the government as Mr Ferguson seemed to suggest.​

Mr Scott told Tribune Business: "This was almost a calculated conspiracy to sabotage and embarrass the board. The board is not suing the government. The attorney general has to be a party to any proceeding commenced under Article 28 of the constitution. They are automatically a party. This is a friendly action. The essence of it is to get the vice-president of the Board to do her job. She has previously said they don't have a case but she has refused to rule."​

In a statement yesterday, he said: "The proceedings recently filed by LRHL are not contentious, but as a matter of procedure, it is necessary to conclude the outstanding matter and to include the attorney general and the tribunal when a party to a trade dispute is seeking relief under the Constitution."​

He continued: "Mr Ferguson would be aware that the Industrial Agreement between the Hotel and the former Hotel Union expired on June 17, 2016, five years after it was signed. In accordance with the Industrial Relations Act and numerous court rulings, the agreement cannot run past five years without a new agreement being negotiated between the parties. Mr Ferguson failed to negotiate a new agreement on behalf of the former Hotel Union."​

Mr Scott pointed out that despite no agreement being in place, the former Hotel Union filed a Trade Dispute in 2017 and, almost three years later, the parties still have no resolution from the Industrial Tribunal despite intimation by the tribunal that the trade dispute proceedings filed by the former Hotel Union were misconceived." ​

"LRHL is desirous of concluding the former Hotel Union's legal challenge that was fraught with procedural and jurisdictional mistakes and the current step by LRHL seeks to do just that and nothing more. With LRHL having voluntarily given the former hotel employees, including the managers, their separation packages earlier in the year, and the expiration of the industrial agreement in 2016, the Tribunal Action should never have been initiated. LRHL regrets the inflammatory, misguided, and inaccurate spin placed on events by Mr Ferguson, though it is not surprised. The singular intention of LRHL at this juncture is to have struck or stayed the improper and misguided trade dispute initiated by Mr Ferguson," said Mr Scott in the statement. ​

"These proceedings were not meant to be an issue of the government suing the government. The Industrial Tribunal is not the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal. It is a statutory tribunal established under the Industrial Act. All we have done is asked the Supreme Court for help but we had to add the Attorney General as a party because anytime you raise a Constitutional issue you have to include the Attorney General," said Jacy Whittaker, a partner at ParisWhittaker.