The Tribune

By DENISE MAYCOCK

Tribune Freeport Reporter

dmaycock@tribunemedia.net

THE Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association (BHMA) intends to appeal a ruling handed down in the Supreme Court on June 3 which dismissed wrongful/unfair dismissal claims by 37 current and former managers at the Grand Lucayan Resort.

Kirkland Russell, BHMA vice president, said the union is “disheartened” and does not agree with the decisions in the ruling by Supreme Court Justice Petra Hanna-Adderley.

“BHMA is very disappointed with the ruling handed down,” he said on Thursday during a press conference at Precious Acres.

“As a result, the association is preparing to immediately file an appeal. There is no doubt that the association finds difficulty with several of the decisions made by Justice Adderley.”

Mr Russell said the appeal could be filed as early as Monday.

“We found it (the ruling) very disheartening, and we are totally disappointed in the manner in which LRH has been dealing and continues to deal with the BHMA,” Mr Russell said.

“We are completely disappointed in the manner in which LRH and Michael Scott dealt with the termination of the managers and supervisors at the hotel. We are most disappointed in the fact that the precedent that the government sets puts all workers in a vulnerable state when it comes to how their contract would be severed or come to an end.”

On March 2, 2019, LRH signed a contract agreeing to terminate the employees of the Grand Lucayan, including line staff, and the managers and supervisors at the hotel.

According to Mr Russell, some of the managers had been on the job for up to 22 years, while others had been employed for 18 years.

The union claimed that the managers and supervisors were made redundant.

However, the judge was not of that view.

Tribune Business previously reported that the judge, in a June 3 verdict, denied virtually all claims by the BHMA and its members stemming from the Grand Lucayan board’s decision to terminate most of the workforce in June 2020 in accordance with the terms of the sales agreement with ITM/Royal Caribbean.

Justice Hanna-Adderley dismissed the case brought by three managers because they had been retained by the Grand Lucayan, and are still working there, while three BHMA executives and trustees had no standing to bring an action because they were never employed by the resort.

The only BHMA member not to correctly sign a “deed of release” was Mr Russell, former Grand Lucayan head chef and now Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) general election candidate for central Grand Bahama.

While finding that Mr Russell was entitled to notice pay, and his wages – minus unemployment benefit payments – for the three-month period between the COVID-19 shutdown in March 2020 and his termination, Justice Hanna-Adderley said he was not released because of redundancy, but the “temporary cessation” of the Grand Lucayan’s business due to the global pandemic, Tribune Business reported.

However Mr Russell said that during the layoff period on March 16, 2020, while under Emergency Orders, the hotel was never closed and managers and other staff were still employed and had to cater to COVID-19 patients at the hotel.

“How are you going to let go a portion of the employees without redundancy?” he asked.

He noted that even though the industrial agreement had expired since 2014, the union and the employer would still be guided and lawfully required to comply with the terms of the agreement.

“Many of the managers and supervisors did not make application to NIB for NIB compensation during COVID because we were firm in our belief that we were government employees and ought not to go to NIB and apply for a portion of our salaries, but compensated in full just as every other government employee was compensated,” he said.

Another issue, he said, concerns the deed of release that was signed “under duress” by employees.

Mr Russell said that LRH claimed that because managers and supervisors signed a deed of release it disqualified them from taking action against the hotel.

He stated that there was also a claim regarding breach of the amended 2017 Employment Act about whether or not the LRH breached its obligation to notify the minister of labour, the union, and meet and speak with the union and decide the process of who would be made redundant, and giving the employees opportunity to meet with union as outlined in the act.

The last issue the ruling dealt with, he said, was the individual case regarding himself.

Mr Russell was head chef and the only manager that did not sign the deed of release.

“She (the judge) said I should be paid for the time I was home. That is why I am the only one entitled to wages and all the benefits because I was the only person that did sign a deed of release,” he said.

In the appeal, Mr Russell said they are hoping for a different outcome.