The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Bahamas Public Services Union’s (BPSU) president and treasurer have won another skirmish in their legal battle with rival executives and trustees over how the union’s funds are being used.

Kimsley Ferguson, pictured, and Philip Greenslade successfully persuaded Supreme Court Justice Ian Winder, in an August 4, 2020, ruling not to grant an injunction that would have halted repairs to the union’s Freeport property until the trustees had inspected the construction work and obtained quotes/estimates for its costs.

The injunction, which had been sought by BPSU trustees Peter Outten; Terrance Dorsett; and Theophilus Dean, plus Cindira Bain, the union’s secretary-general; Leotha Coleby, its assistant secretary; and Tasha Bullard-Hamilton, its northern region vice-president, would also have frozen the duo’s ability to conduct the union’s day-to-day financial business had it been successful.

Justice Winder’s ruling thus exposes the power struggle occurring at the heart of the BPSU, the trade union that represents the majority of the country’s roughly 20,000 civil servants. He has also refused a previous injunction bid that would have prevented Messrs Ferguson and Greenslade from holding January 15’s special general meeting of union members.

Mr Ferguson declined to comment, when contacted by Tribune Business yesterday, over a dispute that has its substantive roots in allegations that himself and Mr Greenslade violated the BPSU’s constitution by transferring monies obtained from member union dues to the National Congress of Trade Unions of The Bahamas (NCTUB) during October and December 2019.

The NCTUB is the umbrella union body that includes the BPSU as one of its members, and the latest injunction bid by the rival union executives and trustees also sought to prevent Messrs Ferguson and Greenslade from dealing with the union’s funds, bank accounts and other assets and property without first obtaining executive board or trustee approval.

Mr Outten, in a July 23, 2020, affidavit, alleged that the trustees “are not taking any more chances” with Mr Ferguson over what he claimed was a “lack of accountability and transparency” relating to the BPSU’s finances and money management.

He argued that the trustees control how union monies are spent, and alleged that they were unaware construction repairs were about to begin on the BPSU’s Freeport building as they were excluded from Zoom meetings on the project by Mr Ferguson.

Mr Outten further claimed that Mr Ferguson failed to provide satisfactory replies when he questioned him on the matter, and efforts by himself and other trustees to close down the Freeport building were blocked by Mr Ferguson and the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF).

“Since we commenced this action against Mr Ferguson, president, and the treasurer, Mr Greenslade, there have been no executive meetings nor were the trustees given the opportunity to address the real priorities of the BPSU, namely, how the BPSU membership monies are being spent and allocated,” Mr Outten alleged.

“Presently, Mr Ferguson has full control of the union’s bank accounts. This matter needs to be immediately addressed as the president has no authority, nor has he received any approval, to control the union’s funds and the real and personal properties of the union......

“We have yet to receive the financial statements from the defendant [Mr Ferguson] that were requested from over a year, and we are now aware of operations that are going on within the union.”

Mr Outten said Mr Ferguson had told the trustees they were not entitled to receive any information on the BPSU since they are not part of the Board, but he countered that the Industrial Relations Act’s articles 25 and 27 state trustees are responsible for union property.

He was supported by an affidavit from fellow plaintiff, Ms Coleby, who alleged that Mr Ferguson “continues to make isolated decisions as it relates to the expenditure of union funds without the Board’s authorisation, approval and many times without their knowledge of such expenditures until after the act”.

She claimed it was “common practice” for Mr Ferguson to make decisions without gaining approval from either the union’s executive board and/or trustees, and that she was unaware how the contractor is being paid for repairing Hurricane Dorian damage to the BPSU’s Freeport building.

“My issue with Mr Ferguson’s actions is that every time Mr Ferguson wants to spend the BPSU’s money without the Board’s approval, he will usually enter into contractual arrangements,” Ms Coleby alleged. “When Mr Ferguson becomes aware that some of the executive board members and the trustees are aware of his actions, he will call a meeting to ratify his illegal actions.”

However, Mr Ferguson’s July 9, 2020, rebuttal was also executed by two BPSU vice-presidents, Ernest Burrows and O’Neil Thurston, as well as Mr Greenslade as proof that the president is supported by the majority of the executive board.

Rejecting claims that he was conducting union business without executive board approval, Mr Ferguson pointed to the resolution of BPSU members at the union’s general meeting - which his opponents had tried to block - determining that trustees are not part of the executive board.

“I resist and reject the premise of the plaintiff’s application,” Mr Ferguson alleged, “as it seeks to impose unconstitutional restrictions on myself as president of the BPSU charged with superintending its affairs and the executive board...

“Contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertions, the trustees are not in charge of authorising any funds that are spent by the BPSU. That would make a nonsense of the executive board, and indeed my role as president and chairman of the board. It is this issue which is at the heart of the plaintiffs’ allegation and desire to embroil the members of the BPSU Board in seemingly endless litigation.”

Mr Ferguson said the decision to board-up the BPSU’s Freeport building, amid another hurricane season, was taken at the executive board’s June 24, 2020, Zoom meeting that was attended by three of the plaintiffs. And he alleged that the trustees had also submitted repair quotes for the executive board’s consideration.

Justice Winder, in rejecting the injunction bid, said the issue of repairing the BPSU’s Freeport property had little to no link with the underlying substantive action. He added that legal actions cannot evolve as new disagreements arise, and that a fresh set of proceedings was required.

“In January, I dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for injunction on the basis that the restraint sought then, restraining the holding of a special general meeting of the members, had nothing to do with the substantive complaint of improperly paying monies to the NCTUB,” Justice Winder wrote.

“Regrettably, it appears that the same situation is occurring here. Whilst there is the hint of concern about the defendants acting unilaterally, there is nothing in the substantive action, however, which relates to or concerns the decision to repair the Grand Bahama property of the union.”

Khalil Parker, the Bahamas Bar Association chair acting for Mr Ferguson, also pointed out that the BPSU’s members - at the January special general meeting that the other side had sought to block - had ratified the NCTUB payments at the heart of the complaint.

As a result, and with the members also voting that the trustees are not part of the executive board, Justice Winder questioned whether the matter was “academic” and if a serious issue remained to be tried. In declining the injunction, he added that the recent passage of Hurricane Isaias showed the need to secure the BPSU’s Freeport property.