Lionel Morley, the Grand Bahama-based second vice president of the Bahamas Hotel Catering and Allied Workers Union (BHCAWU), could not possibly have been serious in leading a demonstration last Friday outside the Department of Labor in Freeport, agitating for additional payments for a group of former Royal Oasis workers.

Just several weeks ago, Morley and seven other executives of the union were locked in bitter dispute with BHCAWU President Roy Colebrook, Secretary General Leo Douglas and Treasurer Basil McKenzie, which included serious allegations related to their conduct in office, resulting in a move to have them suspended. That matter ended up in court, and for a while, Morley was virtually unable to carry out his assigned duties in Freeport and openly complained that union representatives were reportedly being sent to Freeport periodically to do his job. There were also reports that at one stage he was reportedly locked out of his office at Worker's House.

Whether or not that dispute has been resolved is still unclear, but the fact that Morley appeared to be the chief organizer of the demonstration outside the Labor Department suggests that he has been 'reinstated' by the leadership team in New Providence and was given permission to stage the demonstration. If this is indeed the case, then the entire leadership of the BHCAWU collectively must have very short memories. Otherwise, how could they now be demonstrating on behalf of former employees of the Royal Oasis, who were totally neglected by the union in the aftermath of the closure of the resort following the devastating hurricanes in 2004?

When the Royal Oasis closed as a result of damages caused by the hurricanes, the more than 1,200-plus union members who had religiously paid their $10 weekly dues had every reason to expect that the union would have come to their aid financially. Instead, they found themselves no longer union members after failing to pay dues for three months. Since dues are automatically deducted from union members' salaries as a result of a provision included in labor legislation passed in 1979, how could the displaced Royal Oasis workers pay dues if they were unemployed?

Friday's union-led demonstration is all the more brazen when one considers the extraordinary steps that were taken by both the former Progressive Liberal Party government and the current Free National Movement government to provide some measure of financial redress for these workers.

After many of them began to experience serious financial problems, the PLP government stepped in and paid them a portion of the severance pay that was due to them from Driftwood, the former owners of the Royal Oasis, with the stipulation that when they received their money from Driftwood, they would turn it over to the government. Approximately $5 million of the $6.12 million that was said to be owed in redundancy pay to 900 displaced workers were paid by the PLP, but it was almost a foregone conclusion that government would never get this money back, considering the fact that Driftwood left monumental unpaid bills, including $13 million owed to the government in casino taxes.

Shortly after the PLP lost the May 2, 2007 general election, the new FNM government made a commitment to finish paying former Royal Oasis employees what was owed to them. Prime Minister Ingraham could not have been clearer in a statement he made in Freeport last year on Saturday, October 27, when he announced that his government would pay the workers, but added that if "you want to take a hard business/governmental decision you may say the government has no obligation to do so." The government has delivered on its promise, and two weeks ago it made what it said was the final payment to those workers who had indicated to the Ministry of Labor that they were owed money.

Yet Morley claimed at last Friday's demonstration that there are some 59 former workers who still have discrepancies with the amounts that they were paid. Why is it that after the government has said that it has made its final payment, the union is now agitating for more money to be paid out?

Surely, this is an issue that should have been addressed before the Labor Department prepared its 'final list', and had union members not been too occupied fighting among themselves, probably they would have found the time to do so.

As matters now stand, if the union insists that these workers are owed additional money, then it should do what it should have done following the hurricanes in 2004. Surely, with more than 7,000 members and collecting well over $3 million in dues, it should be able to afford to give something back to its membership, even if it means reducing the hefty salaries paid to its executives, who are among the highest paid 'professionals' in this country.