By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A former Bahamas Power & Light (BPL) executive director says he is glad the utility “came to their senses” by abandoning its bid to overturn his near-$600,000 termination payout award.

Patrick Rollins, who alleged he was terminated because of his “perceived political affiliation” with the FNM and Desmond Bannister, told Tribune Business he hopes “to see the day come in this country” when changes in government no longer result in the arbitrary, unjust dismissal of persons simply because it is believed they have connections to the former administration.

Speaking after the Court of Appeal confirmed that BPL had withdrawn and abandoned its appeal against Sir Ian Winder’s Supreme Court ruling, where the Chief Justice awarded him 100 percent of his “breach of contract claim”, Mr Rollins said: “I’m just pleased they came to their senses and decided not to proceed with the appeal. I just hope this matter can be settled now and we can get back on with life.

“I’d like to see the day come in this country, when the Government changes, and we realise this is one country and some people work in government service just to make the country better.” BPL’s decision to withdraw its appeal now paves the way for Mr Rollins to collect on his damages award.

The former executive director, who earned an annual $180,000 salary prior to his January 21, 2022, dismissal alleged in his witness statement that he was warned by then-BPL chairman, Pedro Rolle, in December 2021 that unidentified members of the Davis Cabinet were pushing for both himself and former chief executive, Whitney Heastie, to be removed.

Both men had been appointed to their posts by the former Minnis administration, and Mr Rollins had asserted: “Chairman Rolle informed me that ‘certain people in Cabinet were asking for your head and CEO Heastie’s head because, you know, you are Desmond’s boy’.” He added that Mr Rolle asked him what sort of compensation he was willing to accept as BPL would not pay the balance of his three-year contract.

However, Sir Ian rejected Mr Rollins’ claim that his dismissal, and the reasons for it, were “unfair, unreasonable, unlawfully discriminatory and unconstitutional” by finding “there is no compelling evidence” that the Davis administration’s BPL Board permitted the Government to implement a “discriminatory practice” of removing senior management executives perceived to be FNM supporters.

The BPL Board appointed by the Davis administration decided to terminate Mr Rollins at its first meeting despite one director, Cheryl Simms, an executive with the Kikivarakis & Co accounting firm, voicing misgivings about the consequences of doing so given the absence of a termination ‘without cause’ clause in his contract.

Mr Rollins was appointed as BPL’s deputy chairman on July 1, 2017, following the Minnis administration’s election victory that year. He resigned from the Board on August 14, 2018, but - prior to that - had signed a three-year employment contract on July 20 of that year to become BPL’s executive director with responsibility for overseeing “large technical projects”.

Sir Ian, in his verdict, noted that “in reality” BPL was ‘informed’ of Mr Rollins’ appointment by Mr Bannister, then-deputy prime minister and minister of works with responsibility for BPL, at a July 4, 2018, Board meeting. The job description for the post was sent to BPL on July 13, 2018, by the acting permanent secretary at the Ministry of Works.

Besides the $180,000 base salary, the three-year contract gave Mr Rollins an annual gratuity equal to 15 percent of salary; a BPL vehicle; and medical insurance. He was required to give three months’ notice if he intended to resign, but the contract only permitted BPL’s Board to terminate him “for cause” and provide the reasons for doing so to the minister.

Mr Rollins’ contract was renewed for a second three-year term beginning on July 1, 2021, which was some two-and-a-half months before the September general election. “Bannister had requested that Rollins’ contract be renewed for three years,” Sir Ian wrote in his verdict.

The contract’s terms and conditions were the same as the first version, although the Chief Justice wrote: “It had been proposed by Bannister that, on the renewal of Rollins’ contract, his annual remuneration ought to be increased from $180,000 to $189,000 and that he should receive annual increments of 4 percent per annum over the life of the contract, but these increases were rejected by BPL’s Board.”

The Davis administration’s election to office resulted in the appointment of a new BPL Board chaired by Mr Rolle, a realtor and the Exuma Chamber of Commerce’s president. Mr Rollins testified that he only became aware his job was in danger when he went to see Mr Rolle in December 2021 over the renewal of Wartsila’s expiring contract to operate/maintain BPL’s Station A generation plant at Clifton Pier.

“During the course of that conversation, chairman Rolle informed me that ‘certain people in Cabinet were asking for your head and CEO Heastie’s head because, you know, you are Desmond’s boy’,” he alleged.

“Mr Rolle went on to say to me: ‘I need you to let me know what you are willing to accept because if it goes to court it will take a long time to resolve. Think about it and get back to me because we are not prepared to pay the balance of your contract out’. I was taken aback by this last comment, and saddened, given the effort and industry that I had put into BPL these past several years.”

Mr Rolle, though, vehemently denied saying what was asserted by Mr Rollins. BPL’s new Board, at its first meeting on Thursday, January 20, 2022, decided to terminate Mr Rollins’ contract with effect from the following day by providing him with three months’ pay in lieu of notice.

He was duly summoned to a meeting with Daniel Ferguson, BPL’s deputy chairman, who presented him with a $67,077 cheque and termination letter that he refused to accept or sign. 

After analysing all the evidence, Sir Ian found both Mr Rollins’ contracts “were genuine fixed-term contracts”. As a result, he rejected BPL’s argument that it was “the spirit and intent” of the two sides that Mr Rollins’ employment could be terminated by three months’ notice.

And, in the absence of any evidence to show he would have been “terminated for cause”, the Chief Justice found Mr Rollins was entitled to all the compensation he was seeking and duly awarded him a total $592,952 plus interest at 2 percent to run from his January 21, 2022, termination.

Interest amounts to $11,859 per annum, and Sir Ian said he was awarding that sum because BPL had knowingly failed to provide full compensation despite taking legal advice and the warning from Ms Simms. And, in contrast, it had paid the full contractual sum due to the previous BPL executive director, Deepak Bhatnagar, when he was terminated.

However, Sir Ian rejected the unfair dismissal claim, as he “placed greater weight on the inherent improbability that an experienced businessman would tell a senior executive what it is alleged was said” in the case of Mr Rolle’s comments to Mr Rollins.

Also finding an absence of “wider evidential support” to show the termination was politically motivated, the Chief Justice concluded: “There is no compelling evidence that the Board of BPL allowed the Government to dictate the implementation of a discriminatory practice of removing key management employees who were affiliated with the FNM, which is a very serious allegation.

“The evidence adduced by Rollins does not bear out that there was a ‘witch hunt’ at BPL for FNM-appointed executive management (whomever that set of people may consist of). There is, in the same way, no compelling evidence that the Board failed to act independently in the exercise of their fiduciary duties to BPL and failed to consider whether Rollins’ termination was in the best interests of BPL.

“There is also no compelling evidence that Rollins was subjected to humiliation or degradation because of his perceived political affiliation with the FNM. Rollins’ evidence of humiliation and degradation was gravely undermined during cross-examination.”