PHILIPSBURG--The Court of First Instance ordered Coliseum Casino on Friday to pay salaries to ten workers who lost their jobs on November 3, 2014.

 

The Court ordered the casino to pay due salaries to the workers from November 15, 2014, plus legal interest, until the labour agreements have been terminated legally.

 

All employees who had been working at Coliseum between 17 and 24 years were terminated after the passing of Olrenho NV's managing director in July 2014. This company had paid out their salaries since January 2006, after Coliseum Casino's management company Pleasure Port Management (PPM) had closed a labour supply agreement with Olrenho.

 

The workers, employed at the Front Street casino in different jobs such as cleaners and cashiers, received their last payment mid-November 2014.

Coliseum had given Olrenho two months' notice in observing the agreement it had with this company, which arranged payment of workers' salaries and social premiums.

 

In a press release dated November 3, 2014, it was stated that Coliseum Casino had no other choice but to terminate the contract with Olrenho NV with two months' notice. The termination became effective per November 3, 2014.

 

"The employees of Olrenho NV that were placed by Coliseum Casino were notified of the termination of the contract with Olrenho NV and advised to report to their employer. They were further advised that they could apply for a job with Coliseum Casino after three months and they would be considered, or that they could join another employment agency and Coliseum Casino would consider entering into a contract with that employment agency," it was stated.

 

The workers claimed they had entered into a permanent labour agreement with the casino and that the "takeover" by Olrenho had only meant their salaries were paid to them via Olrenho and that the casino still had remained their employer.

 

The Court did not hold PPM to be their employer, as the workers had claimed, because PPM had managed the casino and acted on behalf of the casino.

 

Parties had not contested that the employees had worked in the casino between July 16, 2014, and November 3, 2014, and that the casino had paid out salaries during that period of time.

 

The casino had stated that the payments were to be considered loans, but this argument was thrown out by the Court, which did not deem it "implausible" that the casino had, in fact, remained their employer.

 

The Daily Herald