"Electricity price rises if we loose lawsuit"

May 05, 2011 7:22 AM

ORANJESTAD — Thirty staff workers from electricity supplier Elmar went to court in an attempt to solve a lingering wage conflict with their employer.

The case came up in court yesterday and the judge referred the parties back to the negotiation table. Elmar-director Rob Henriquez already announced that the electricity prices would rise if the staff workers win the lawsuit.

The conflict goes all the way back to 2005. From a press report that the company had circulated with regard to yesterday’s lawsuit, it appears that in 2005, Elmar had enforced an adjustment in the salary system. A part of the salary increases are paid differently with this group than with personnel falling under the cao (collective labor agreement). Since then, several conversations were held with the co-workers who were immediately confronted with the consequences of this new salary structure, according to Elmar. As those conversations had not yielded a palatable solution, the staff workers decided after years to take the matter to court.

Elmar-director Rob Henriquez made a short statement after the lawsuit. He said that due to the economic situation five years ago, the company had no choice than to adjust the salary structure. “We do not have any reserves. If we are to meet the demands of our staff workers and forced to pay, then we have to increase the tariffs. There is no other way for us to pay this.” If the company must make up the difference, it would regard approximately 1 million guilders extra that Elmar looses on wages. In addition, the personnel costs would increase drastically while Elmar alleges they can barely pay the current costs ensuing from the cao. Furthermore, it has consequences for Elmar’s pension fund.

Lawyer Edwin Duijneveld represents the group of co-workers. After the court case, in which the judge referred both parties back to the negotiation table, he made it clear that Elmar’s decision in 2005 has consequences for the pension, the staff bonus and the holiday payment of his clients. “They understand the argument that Elmar had to take certain financial decisions in 2005 due to the economic situation, but they do not agree with Elmar’s manner of choice. Although they had made this known immediately, Elmar had proceeded unilaterally,” says the lawyer. He denies that the case has become barred by lapse of time.

Both parties are now to reach a solution within six weeks, if not, the solution is left up to the judge, who will then render judgement.

(Source: Newspaper Amigoe)

05 May 2011