An emotional Parliament meeting on the dismissal of more than 100 Simpson Bay Resort and Marina (former Pelican Resort) employees ended with an angry crowd of workers confronting two Members of Parliament (MPs) outside Parliament House on Thursday evening.
The rowdy workers, who had walked out of the meeting minutes earlier, first confronted MP Roy Marlin (DP) as he exited the building when the meeting ended. They hurled angry remarks at him and accused him of lying during the meeting when he said a National Alliance (NA) motion presented and voted down was based on “hearsay,” not facts. “Why did you lie?” one worker shouted.
The workers became louder and more vociferous when MP Jules James (UP) was leaving the building surrounded by security officers and other persons. The workers walked behind James as he left the meeting and expressed their frustration with his position on their dismissal.
James is also the General Manager of Simpson Bay Resort Management Company (SBRMC) and had sent the workers home verbally several weeks ago. Although the security officers tried to keep the crowd at bay and away from James, a plastic sack containing unknown items was thrown at him.
“It won’t end this way,” one visibly upset worker said in the midst of the fracas.
“We should have a national strike,” suggested another.
“We have to go and thief now because we have no jobs,” said another.
The crowd of angry workers, at least one in tears, remained outside Parliament House long after the meeting ended, expressing their frustration among themselves and with some NA MPs and United People’s (UP) party MP Romain Laville, who remained to listen to their concerns.
Some of the workers were visibly upset with what they said was Laville’s mixed messages at the meeting, but told him that once he had their backs, they would have his.
The workers had stormed out of the public meeting earlier after a motion presented by the NA calling for their reemployment and for Parliament to stand in solidarity with them had been voted down six for and seven against.
A second similar motion calling for government intervention was presented by Laville on behalf of the governing coalition. However, Laville did not vote for the motion he had presented and it was not carried, as seven MPs voted for it while eight votes were needed for it to be carried.
Laville had left the hall just before the voting after making remarks that cast a cloud over his political future and his ties with UP (see related story), and saying that he had tied his own shoelace last night. He returned later with some of his fellow UP members, but abstained from voting on the NA motion – the first to be tabled for voting. After being told that he could not abstain and that he had to vote “for” or “against,” he left the room and did not vote on either motion.
James had told The Daily Herald in December 2010 and again in January this year when faced with conflict of interest accusations that he would not vote or take part in any deliberations as an MP on any issue that might present a conflict of interest in relation to the resort issue. However, he voted on both motions presented on Thursday.
Emotional
The meeting turned emotional when NA MP Louie Laveist had to stop in the middle of his presentation in the second round after breaking down in tears. Laveist was responding at the time to earlier statements by DP MP Roy Marlin that such a meeting should not run on emotions and politics should not be played with the resort matter.
An emotional Laveist said his sister was one of the over 100 workers who had been dismissed and that he loved his sister and this was not an issue with which he could play politics. “No mas [no more],” Laveist said repeatedly during the meeting.
Many of the workers in the public meeting were seen crying during Laveist’s presentation. An equally emotional Laville, who was overcome with emotion later in the meeting, was seen giving napkins to the weeping workers. Workers who were not weeping wore sad faces.
The motions
The Parliament meeting began shortly after 2:00pm with NA MPs Laveist, Dr. Lloyd Richardson, George Pantophlet, Hyacinth Richardson and William Marlin, and independent MP Frans Richardson denouncing the dismissal of the workers. Some MPs alluded to James position in the matter, with some calling it a blatant conflict of interest and a discredit to Parliament.
Some of them called for the speedy handling of the NA draft amendment to the civil code to stem the abuse of short-term labour contracts, which DP MP Roy Marlin said later in the meeting would have his support.
William Marlin who spoke after his other NA colleagues and Frans Richardson (independent) ended his presentation by presenting a motion asking Parliament to stand in solidarity with the dismissed employees and their struggle to secure continued permanent employment with the resort.
The NA contended in its motion that James had verbally dismissed the workers immediately following the recent court ruling “without giving them a valid reason and due notice in writing,” which the NA said was “a clear violation of the labour laws.”
The NA also contended that workers, some of whom had worked for the former Pelican Resort for more than a decade in permanent service, had been told that to remain employed they had to sign six-month contracts immediately, before they left the premises, and this had been “clear examples of excessive abuse of power” on James’ part.
In the motion NA called for Parliament to denounce James’ actions in his capacity as General Manager of SBRMC and in particular the verbal dismissal of about 100 unionised workers and the replacement of these permanent employees with casual workers via so-called employment agencies.
The motion also called for the resort and SBRMC to maintain all of the resort’s employees in their respective positions, pending the final ruling of the Supreme Court on the case between the Simpson Bay Resorts and Marina and Workers Institute for Organised Labour (WIFOL). It also called on government “to use whatever influence, powers and authority it might have to intervene on behalf of the dismissed workers … in the general interest of proactively maintaining peace, law and order in St. Maarten.”
The NA said if James stuck to “his decision” to dismiss the unionised workers, at the start of the 2011-2012 tourist season “this can lead to social and labour unrest in the country, which in turn can have a negative impact on the overall economy.”
The meeting was adjourned after William Marlin’s presentation for MPs of the governing coalition to discuss changes to the motion and whether they would support it.
When the meeting resumed Laville, who had been supporting the workers since the resort issue began months ago, said he was not at the meeting to throw his colleague [James, ed.] under the bus, because as UP leader he had a responsibility to do “his best” and to do what was “right” for the UP members. However, he said he could not “sit by and see the wrong that was being done to my people every single day and night.”
Laville said he believed what was happening to the workers was not right and he had to stand for what was right. He said it was the responsibility of the owners of the former Pelican Resort to take care of issues such as pension payment for the workers and he asked where the owners were. He asked whether the issue involving the workers would go away if James decided to sever ties with SBRMC.
He said too that after meeting with NA and perusing its motion, it had been decided that care had to be exercised when presenting motions to Parliament, as accurate information was needed. He said most of the information was not accurate. He said too that the NA had been asked to put a motion together with the governing coalition, but had refused.
He then presented a draft motion signed by the eight members of the governing coalition present – Laville, James, Johan “Janchi” Leonard, Silvia Olivacce-Meyers and Gracita Arrindell of UP; Roy Marlin and Leroy de Weever of DP; and independent MP Patrick Illidge.
In the motion the coalition also called for Parliament to stand in solidarity with the workers and said any labour unrest at this time would not bode well for the economy. The coalition called for government to use whatever influence, power and authority it had to intervene and mediate with the management of the resort and union to “bring back labour rest” to the resort. It also demanded that the tripartite committee agreement signed in March continue until the legal issues over the resort were resolved.
Roy Marlin had said the NA motion was not geared towards protecting the workers, but towards government, business and Jules James. “Do not let yourself be fooled by a motion that states that the actions of Jules James are clear violation of the labour laws of St. Maarten,” Roy Marlin said.
He said no General Manager in a store or a shop in St. Maarten could take any actions that were in violation of the labour laws of St. Maarten, because if a company did something in violation of the labour laws, it could be challenged in the court of law.
The NA accused the coalition later of plagiarising aspects of its motion and presenting it to protect James, not the people of St. Maarten. However, the coalition said this wasn’t the case.
After the voting on the NA motion the workers walked out of the public meeting. They were followed by NA MPs and Richardson, after which the confrontation took place outside Parliament House.
