Over 600 retired public servants have sued 2 of the biggest labour unions and won a judgement over who should control over 9 million dollars in backpay.
These 640 retirees were represented by claimants Sheila Genitty, Darrel Gardiner, and Ruth White. They make up an ad hoc committee, set up to express their complete disagreement with the way the Public Sector Workers Trust is handling the money.
This dispute dates back to a period between 1995 to 1997, when the Esquivel Administration froze the salary increases and increments for all teachers and public servants of that time.
To compromise with the teachers and public officers, Prime Minister Esquivel gave them 450,000 shares in BTL. These shares were issued INSTEAD of the frozen increments. The dividends from the shares were supposed to be used to compensate the public officers for their losses in the wage freeze.
20 years have passed, and up to 2014, those shares generated a reported 9.2 million dollars in dividends. That's when the Barrow Government handed them over to the Public Sector Workers Trust. This trust was formed by the Public Service Union, the Belize National Teachers Union, the Police Association and the Nurses Association. The trust is made up of 4 trustees, one person chosen from each of the Unions and the associations, and one appointed from those trustees. Those unions also acted as settlers and protectors, and they drafted a trust deed to outline the purpose of the trust.
The problem is that this trust deed allowed for other beneficiaries to be added on, and in many instances, these new beneficiaries were persons not affected by the original wage freeze. So, these 640 public servants sued the Public Sector Workers Trust to settle who is to benefit from all those millions once and for all. Their case was argued before Justice Courtney Abel, who handed down his oral judgement this morning, ruling completely in the favor the claimants.
First, he declared that the Trust Deed set up by the Public Sector Workers Trust, is invalid, unenforceable, and in breach. Second, he defined the beneficiaries as only those public servants who were affected by the wage freeze from 1995 to 1997. This means that any other beneficiaries who were added on after that through the invalid trust deed will now have to be removed. The judge has also ordered that the unions must consult with the Government and the Claimants for a new trust deed to be drawn up. They must also give account of all the monies, and expenditures of the funds from those BTL shares. One of the claimants, Sheila Genitty, told us that they were having severe difficulties in getting the trustees to show them the accounting of exactly how much money is there. Genitty says that they have reason to believe that the funds generated by the BTL shares is now over 10 million dollars since BTL has made further annual dividend payments since they their investigation back in 2014.
So, what's the perspective of the Trustees who lost the case? Well, here's what they told us today:
Dr. Phillip Castillo - Trustee, Public Sectors Workers Trust
"The court case came to its near conclusion. The genesis of the trust is that between 1995 and 1997, increments for public officers were frozen, because of the freeze in increments there were a series of negotiations between the government and the unions at the time. The unions being, BNTU and PSU. The resolution to those negotiations are enshrined in number 9 of 1996 and number 10 of 1996 and basically what those did, the increments were restored eventually and government also gave to the union shares in BTL and the dividends from the shares were to be used to develop projects to benefit all public servants. At least that was our interpretation. The interpretation of the claimants, I guess you could speak to them, was that the beneficiaries were that narrow group of public servants from '95 to '97. The unions took the perspective that the beneficiary should be all public servants. What isn't a win for us is who the beneficiaries are. again the beneficiaries according to the judgment, I don't to speak too much of that because we haven't seen the perfected judgement and we are not lawyers and from my understanding the beneficiaries are that narrow group of public servants whose increments were frozen from '95 to '97, those would be the beneficiaries of the trust."
Reporter
"My understanding to go back once more is that these monies have been set aside for projects and would not be disperse to individuals, correct?"
Dr. Phillip Castillo - Trustee, Public Sectors Workers Trust
"That is also my understanding, that the trust deed that exist now is in revised because the trustee should be revised so that GOB becomes the settler. But from my understanding the aim of the trust remains to develop the projects to benefit beneficiaries, except that beneficiaries have been narrowly defined."
Luke Palacio - Trustee, Public Sector Workers Trust
"The trust superficially states that the trustees have the power to add beneficiaries and we follow that. The matter of the protectors of the trust which is a question that is asked for a reason in the trustee that we presented to government indicated that for the time being, the presidents of the BNTU, the PSU and Police Association would be the protectors of the trust. The settlers of the trust would have been the BNTU and the PSU, so all of those were outlined in the trust and there were no objections. In the discussion presented today, the preliminary judgment, if you will, the draft that was read to us, the judge is indicating that there seems to have been quite a bit of confusion created by the language in the trust document itself, but more so in the press release issued by the government in 2014 when they have passed over the monies to the accounts, the monies in the accounts to the union because the trust have been formed. And of course that was when the challenge came about. The judge also indicated that the confusion created there is that the press release in one aspect is saying that these monies are to be used for projects and at the same time in another paragraph it states that the beneficiaries are to contact the trustees for monies owed to them. We trust that the matter can be resolved and like our trustees, Castillo has indicated, we don't want to speak on behalf of claimants, whose main goal based on our interpretation of their application to the court is that the think that they should be getting monies. So, that matter needs to be clarified."
The claimants were represented by Magali Marin-Young, while the Trustees were represented by attorneys from Young's Law Firm. The written judgement will be handed down at a later date.
Email
Print