Dans un ordre émis, hier après-midi, le Reduncancy Board (RB), sous la présidence de Rashid Hossen, a refusé d’accorder l’autorisation à la MTC Sports and Leisure Ltd (MTCSL) de fermer ses portes. Raison évoquée : la compagnie n’a pas effectué de Meaningful Negociations avec les employés avant de recourir au Redundancy Board. Du coup, les 200 membres du personnel sur lesquels pesaient une menace de licenciement continuent à demeurer des employés de la MTCSL.
« Failure on the part of the Employer to engage in meaningful negotiations goes to the root of the matter. The Board considers that the reasons showing cause for the intended closing down are unjustified. The Board therefore orders the Employer not to close down its enterprise », stipule cet ordre.
Le Redundancy Board est d’avis que les rencontres entre les représentants de la MTSCL et les syndicats des employés avaient « l’allure des négociations » mais qu’en fait, les représentants des employés ont été mis devant un fait accompli. « We consider that in the present matter, the meeting under the allure of negotiation was more a meeting of fait accompli.
« The Employer had already decided that he was unable to apply the statutory obligations due to the closing down and has to proceed hastily towards liquidation. The meeting could have been of informative value to the workers, but totally falling short of a proper negotiation exercise. It should not be a mere “procedural ritual”. We do not see much that have been deliberated upon in exploring the possibility of avoiding the closing down of the enterprise. It was a duty on the employer to adduce sufficient evidence to show that all avenues have been exhausted. It is not for the employer to decide on the applicability of the statutory requirements. They are meant to be applied and considered. We do not expect all negotiations to be fruitful. But the duty to apply and consider the statutory obligations are to be complied with as it would otherwise defeat the purpose of the legislation », écrit le président du Redundancy Board dans cet ordre.
Il poursuit en disant qu’il est inacceptable qu’un employeur qui a signifié son intention de fermer les portes de sa compagnie procède à la mise en liquidation. « It is unacceptable that an Employer who intends to close down decides to put the company in liquidation and then claims that the statutory requirements regarding the possibility to avoid closure cannot be applied. An Employer who considers closing down his enterprise, must negotiate with the employees as soon as possible and at latest at the time when the decision to close is taken », dit-il encore.
« The whole purpose is to give employees a chance to express their concerns and to consider alternatives to closure. This should take place when the proposal to close down is still at a formative stage and the Employer should provide sufficient information to enable the employees to respond meaningfully. The Employer, through its liquidator, cannot say that negotiations with employees regarding statutory requirements to avoid such closure are not possible due to the very closure of the company; he still has a legal obligation to follow the applicable laws covering closure of enterprise, including negotiations with employees », soutient-il encore.
Même si la MTSCL a fait savoir qu’elle est en difficulté, cela ne devrait pas être une excuse pour ne pas avoir des négociations sérieuses. « Even if the Board were to reach the ultimate conclusion that the Employer is in dire financial straits as per the unaudited account produced and the testimony of the Liquidator, the duty to engage in meaningful negotiation cannot be overlooked. (..) We note the blame game between the parties regarding the current situation of the Employer. The Board cannot and will not consider motives or allegations of mismanagement », ajoute Rashid Hossen.