very good points, however, has anyone heard or read the contents of a new contract between Chevron and Rubis, if Rubis is accepting the turnover of the same contractual agreement between themselves and Chevron honoring the time employee's have put in, then why would they entitled to severence.If on the other hand, Chevron is walking away and Rubis is coming in as a totally brand new company with everyone starting from scratch, then surely they are entitled to some kind of severance. But (they) Antgua should be careful, this could put a sour taste in the mouth of future investors.

Tenman, I hear you....but again, the term "severance" denotes that the employment relationship is ending (through no fault of the employee), and that is the sole legal reason for offering the employee any additional payment other than accrued vacation pay, direct salary, etc. Therefore, no one should rightfully expect any employer (including government) to pay severance and yet be expected to keep the same employees....no matter how much "value" they had previously offered the company, or how well they had previously performed their jobs. But I see your opinion is quite entrenched (and probably shared by quite a few others), so I will not try to further argue the point.

Antiguan Abroad let me also add that since I am currently a share holder in state insurance based on the fact that its owned by government, its my wish that government not only do the legal thing, but also the moral thing. However I can't suggest that (they they rehire all employees who take severance) when it comes to Chevron because I have no shares in the company.

..

Antiguan Abroad what you stated is the rule here. If you notice where State Insurance is concerned I stated that though legally they do not have to rehire, in the case of state, I believe they should. My reasoning is: Government has stated they have no issues with the employees and gives them kudos for a job well done. They were willing to protect their jobs and even offer them shares in the company. With all of this, then why not rehire? If it was different and they had argued some of the employees create no value, then I would not have a problem with persons not being rehired for that reason. What I am saying is it is the government that stated all of the employees brought value to the company therefore I can't see why simply the act of paying severance should give reason to not reemploy persons.Hope I have cleared up the issue?

..

Tenman, I am not a labor law practitioner, but I have a good friend whose clients include multi-national companies doing business around the world....and he informs me that the labor practices in Antigua are not that unusual (though very different from the US). In France, for instance, where the labor laws are considered quite liberal, they may adopt similar practices as enshrined in the Antigua Labor Code. The big difference, it seems, is the Antiguan perception of severance pay. Once these companies change ownership (by name change, or otherwise), if the law states that the employee should have the option of severance, that is all well and good....but the employee needs to also clearly understand that the employment relationship is being "severed" (or cut), and there should be absolutely no expectation that he/she will be re-hired by the new company. I note that from your previous postings on the SIC transfer that you might have any issue with that, but it makes good and practical business sense.

@ j so the question is does that precedent apply to Chevron? Is this a new employer? I would think yes. Would the employees be at a disadvantage financially in case of a suit ? Since Chevron is selling major assets to Rubis to me the answer is yes

J our laws and history are different than say the US but I am sure if you look properly you will find developed countries with similar labor rules. Where this case is concerned the idea is you cannot force someone to work for a company they never signed up to work for especially when doing so may put the worker at a disadvantage. Imagine working for company A for twenty years and you then learn it has decided to move from being a sole proprietor to a limited liability company. In the past our industrial court has ruled that severance must be made an option in such a case with a major reason being that the new situation has now limited the employees access to moneys in case of a law suit (they can no longer go after their employers personsal assets only that of the new company).

..

Only in Antigua when one company buys another you have to pay the employees a severance. ATT is buying T-Mobile for $39 Billon I can assure you that T-Mobile employes will not be getting a severance package unless said employee is made redundant. How do you expect to attract global companies with these labour laws?

While (as Antiguan Abroad puts it) "Chevron will now get an unwanted lesson in how Antiguan labor practices are conducted.", that lesson is also being learned by both Chevron's successor corporation and other foreign firms.

Now they they have been put on notice not only to limit the number of employees, due to the financial ramifications (which isn't really a big deal), but to also limit operations in the country as a whole, since the unconventional and unpredictable business, political and legal environment can impact on operations not only within Antigua, but also other more strategically and financially important jurisdictions/m arkets.

I believe the Industrial Court made the correct decision! Tenman, there is no doubt that Chevron will lose! And I am sure they do not want to prolong the matter with severances! Sometimes, companies come under public scrutiny, which can affect their bottom line. Would they want patrons to join the employees in protest? They should respect our labour codes and laws like any other company, regardless, if they are a local or foreign entity!

Antiguan Abroad I think the next lesson will be the long lag which will probably force them to settle the matter. If the case is adjudicated I suspect based on the Tommy Joseph precedent (we discussed this just last week when I compared State insurance to Chevron) that Chevron will lose this case


..

The sale by Chevron to Rubis has been reported to be worth around US$300 million. I wonder how much severance the 24 Antiguan employees are requiring? I would think it should be a mere drop in the bucket for this rich oil company. However, this sale involves several other islands in the Caribbean, as well as some Latin American countries.....s o I suspect that if the precedent for a relatively large payout is set in Antigua, it would have to be applied to the other territories as well. As I have stated before, the issue of employee severance is handled much differently in Antigua than in the US.....and the framers of the Antigua Labor Code should be given much credit for that. In the US, although most large companies will voluntarily pay some form of employee severance, it is typically not mandated by law, and is therefore up to the company to determine what is fair...unless it is already stipulated in the employee's contract (typically senior managers and executives) or is part of the company's employment guidelines. I think Chevron will now get an unwanted lesson in how Antiguan labor practices are conducted. They can afford this lesson, though.