Last night we told you how the Public Service Union has been given 30 days to vacate its national headquarters on the famed hilltop in Belmopan. The attorney for the company who now owns the property wrote to the union saying that it has until October 30th to clear out - or they will go to court to take out an eviction notice. That attorney is Steve Perrera and he writes for Simplex, the mystery company that bought the property from the Belmopan City council late last year. In his letter, Perrera refers to a remark the union president, Gerald Henry made to the media - saying that the union plans to vacate. Well, today Henry told PLUS TV he never said that - and added that they don't plan to vacate until they are compensated for what he says is their equitable interest in the property:...
Gerald Henry, President, PSU
"What precipitated the letter is a statement that they claimed that I made on the media saying that we are vacating the property. I'd like to first if all state that that is not so. I did not make any statement that we are vacating the property. What I said was that after the presidential tour that I had that the membership of the union mandated us to basically give up, in terms of the legal claim on the property itself, because the property was legally sold and that is our position that the property was legally sold. However, we do maintain an equitable interest in the property and that is what keeps us from vacating. If we vacate then essentially we are saying that the fact that we are giving up that equitable interest and certainly that is not the position of myself or the membership which is very adamant on us going to court for the equitable interest to be resolved."
"Their letter is in no way a document that is actionable, that we have to take action on. It came from a lawyer, it didn't come from the court and so it has no value in terms of that and lie I said based on what they are saying that the statement that I made it makes their letter pretty much null and void, because I didn't make the statement."
Henry defines equitable interest as the improvements the union has made to the property - but he could not put a figure on it. But, the bigger question is, when did the union give up on getting back the property and why? Henry explained the will of his membership:..
Gerald Henry
"The change of heart came about when the legal advisors to the union with regards to this issue basically stated that the risk is very high that we won't be successful with the case and so that is what I had to take back to our membership to get a new mandate. The new mandate could have very well been that we would continue the fight. However, members across the country and I'm saying this that is was unanimously voted on across the country. I think if we had 10 persons who said no, let us fight, we had a lot and so the mandate was clear that in terms of the legal battle to maintain or to retain the property, its didn't make sense for us to do and so let's move on and then seek the compensation."
We'll keep following the story.
Email
Print