Soap operas are a favorite of some housewives, but certain employees of the Belize Water Services (BWS), a government-owned utility, have found themselves at the center of a real life drama which has seen at least 6 people lose their jobs and several others accused of “scandalous” machinations which could not be detailed in an ensuing lawsuit for which hearings began in the Supreme Court this week before Madam Justice Michelle Arana.

Attorney for the five of the six claimants, Trecia Pitts-Anderson, who takes over from Senior Counsel Antoinette Moore, was quick to her feet when her counterpart, Julie-Ann Ellis-Bradley, the junior attorney for Belize Water Services, attempted to question former BWS Workers Union president, Lorelei Westby, about alleged attempts to tamper with her brakes and burn Westby’s vehicle.

Pitts-Anderson objected to that line of questioning as being unsubstantiated claims against her clients and irrelevant to the case, and the probe was later abandoned.

Whereas BWS’s lead attorney, Rodwell Williams, SC, who cross-examined all the claimants, told the court that the workers had been terminated because the company had to effect cost-cutting measures, which became more urgent due to the rate reduction of 7.2% approved by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) back in 2012, the claimants contend that they were wrongfully terminated over three malicious letters that were being circulated about BWS management.

Attorney Rodwell Williams comments on Belize… by adeleramosbz

One of those persons terminated was Mark Menzies, a former lab technician, at the BWS. His attorney, Said Musa, SC, told the media that, “there is a clear assertion from the litigants that they were terminated wrongfully based on those letters that were circulating attacking staff members,” and they are seeking damages for wrongful dismissal.

Pitts-Anderson told the court that it was only after the three malicious letters were circulated that the claimants were made aware of redundancy plans.

Musa explained to the media that Menzies had been working at BWS for almost 33 years when he was terminated on the grounds of redundancy, yet “his job was replaced by others.”

Musa — who contends that the workers “were all victimized and wrongfully terminated” — questioned, in speaking with the media, the veracity of BWS’s claim that they were cutting staff to improve efficiency, even as the company proceeded to fire a veteran member of staff.

He said that the investigation into the malicious letters started about mid-2012 and the very next day after Menzies’ termination on February 6, the company issued a memo stating exactly why these people were terminated – to teach them a lesson, because of the internal turmoil amidst which people were being accused of all sorts of “salacious things going on within the company.”

Musa’s client was paid $188,000 upon termination, and Williams raised the question in court over whether that included severance. Musa said that this is a matter to be decided by the court. He told us that his client is also claiming general damages, which, if the court agrees, could range from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Although the case centers on allegations made that BWS unfairly terminated the six workers, three of which are former union executives, what it clearly reveals is a breakdown in the union’s functions at a very critical juncture. In fact, the union president, Westby, told the court that in October 2012, “I removed myself as president…”

When we queried why she did so, a source close to her told us that the union president had stepped back because she was being framed as the mastermind behind the letters.

“Somebody was trying to implicate you in salacious and scandalous business,” Musa noted, since what appeared to be Westby’s signature appeared on at least one of the letters.

“I don’t wish those things on my worst enemy,” Westby replied, claiming that she does not know who was behind the writing of the letters.

All the claimants have indicated to the court that they were not previously informed of plans to make their posts redundant, and those who had been sitting on the union executive told the court that Westby did not share the letters she received from the company’s management, indicating that they would retrench some staff.

The litigants contend that it was only after they had filed the lawsuit that they learned that the company’s management had been communicating via letter with Westby.

Don Gillett, one of the litigants who had served as 2nd vice president of the union, alleged that at the time of his termination, the company’s CEO, Alvan Haynes, who has yet to take the stand, had told him that if his (Gillett’s) name was cleared in the investigations, he could get his job back.

“You’re making that up, Sir,” Williams retorted.

When Gillett, who worked at BWS as a senior customer service representative, took the stand on Tuesday, he told the court that indeed, he knew of the company’s plans to undertake cost-cutting measures, but they were never told that those cost-cutting measures included staff cuts.

Williams told Gillett that there were communications indicating that he, Gillett, had asked the union executive to explain to membership what retrenchment means, but Gillett said that the only issue at the time was the termination of two security staff out of Dangriga back in November 2012.

Under examination by Ellis-Bradley, who took over Wednesday afternoon for Williams, Westby, procurement supervisor at BWS, who has been with the company for 25 years, told the court that in a meeting which management held with the union to discuss their salary scale review, they observed that some new posts were being created while others were excluded from the listing. At this point, they queried, and Westby said that they were then informed that a retrenchment was in process.

Westby told the court that no grievance case from the terminated workers went to her. She said that when workers are made redundant, sometimes they would challenge it.

“Don Gillett gave me a hug and said everything is okay,” she told the court.

Williams tried to establish that all the claimants knew of the company’s plans to embark on labor cuts, at first, due to its strategic plan dating back to 2009, and secondly, due to a 7.2% rate reduction which the PUC effected in 2012.

When the rate reduction was announced in January 2012, a few months before the last general elections, Amandala reported that Prime Minister Dean Barrow had indicated to us that he believed that consumers could get an ease on their water bills.

Williams argued in court, though, that the company took a “hit” which made cost-cutting measures even more urgent. He said that due to the rate reduction, the company began an effort to cut costs, including the cutting of jobs.

When Williams presented these assertions to Colin Morrison, Morrison said that this was never communicated to him. While Williams insisted that the tariff cut obliged BWS to cut operational costs, Morrison said he was never told anything about the company retrenching staff in 2009 or in 2012, and that although there was talk of cost cutting, they only referred to reducing waste, such as not leaving a company vehicle running or leaving lights on in rooms that were not in use.

In questioning Charlett Barnett, former union general secretary who worked as a dispatcher at BWS, Williams pressed her into agreeing that cost cutting does include labor cuts, but Barnett indicated that she, also, was never told specifically that there would be job losses as a part of the cost-cutting efforts.

Williams also claimed that the employees were primarily chosen for termination on the basis of poor performance while working at BWS. The most extensive allegations of misconduct were against Michael Novelo, who was accused by the company of not reporting an accident with the company vehicle, being absent from work without permission and taking unauthorized vacation leave.

Williams said that one weekend, when Novelo did not show up to work, he was found welding.

“I don’t know anything about any welding!” Novelo retorted.

It turns out that he had taken the time off on a Saturday to attend his own wedding. Williams conceded to the error, but pressed ahead with allegations that Novelo had failed to report the vehicle accident.

Novelo said, though, that he did report the accident and the company’s staff visited the accident site and took pictures, and he later filed a written report. Novelo went on to say, though, that the accident happened after he had made repeated complaints to the company that the brakes were not working properly.

None of the staff members accused of a poor track record with the company conceded that they had such a record, and they all took issue with the company’s refusal to give them a letter of recommendation so that they could seek a new job. They said that what they instead got were generic statements with minimal information about their tenure with the company, and no details about their duties and responsibilities.

The claimants — most of whom have been reemployed — contend that the letters which management wrote to Westby on the redundancy issue were never shared with the executive, and at no time did they go to the General Secretary.

“That’s a lie,” Westby fired back, but she was corrected by Pitts-Anderson about the language she was using on the witness stand.

Westby had told the court that there were meetings between management and the executive of the union on the matter; however, the only evidence presented in court was a letter from Human Resource Manager Hayden Brown referring to a meeting between him and Westby. Whereas Westby said that a meeting was held in December to discuss the redundancies, she told the court that when they checked the minute book — a hardbound book — no such minutes could be found in them.

Pitts-Anderson conveyed in court that during the investigations into the malicious letters, Barnett, the general secretary of the union, was ordered to deliver the union’s minute book to management. She told Westby that perhaps the reason that the “elusive minutes” could not be found is because there was no meeting in December, as Westby had insisted.

“That is incorrect! I had a meeting,” Westby replied.

While he was on the witness stand, Mark Menzies, who worked as a lab technician at BWS, told the court that although he was made redundant, he believes that he has been replaced.

Musa asked Westby what she understands redundancy to mean, and whether the mere changing of the name of a post, later filled by a new employee, could truthfully be considered redundancy when the new employee is tasked with the same job as the one fired on the basis of redundancy. Westby eventually conceded that the term redundancy could not be applied in such a case.

Pitts-Anderson presented the provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the union and management of BWS which indicates that the company must inform the union in writing within a reasonable time of any intended retrenchment. She said that the letter of November 2012 only referred to the redundancy of two security officers in Dangriga, and that letter complies with the requirement set out in the collective bargaining agreement for those cases.

Westby confirmed to the court that she had received no such letters proposing the redundancy of the claimants who have/are suing BWS over their termination.

ust under 200 are union members.

Westby told the court when she removed herself as president in October 2012, Russell Young, a former union president, acted as temporary president. She could not categorically tell the court whether Young had any discussions with the claimants about the company’s plans to make them redundant before they were actually terminated.

Westby told the court that the union did not hold any meeting to discuss the sweep of redundancies on February 6, 2013.

The claimants told Amandala that they had sought the intervention of Labour officials — to no avail. They also told us that the National Trade Union Congress of Belize (NTUCB) did not intervene. They said that they filed the lawsuit because they felt they had no other recourse.

The hearing will resume sometime in September or October, when Westby is again due to take the stand. BWS’s CEO Haynes and Human Resource Manager, Hayden Brown, are also due to be called as witnesses.