By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A downtown Nassau resort’s firing of its then-chief engineer after he “demanded” that a third-party contractor pay $45,000 to himself and his wife has been upheld by the Industrial Tribunal.

Ingrid Cooper-Brooks, in an October 10, 2025, agreed that Preston Clarke’s misconduct was “so serious as to justify” Preston Clarke’s dismissal by the Courtyard Marriott amid accusations that he threatened the contractor would not be awarded any more work at the Nassau Street property unless it paid the money into the couple’s “personal accounts”.

And, noting that Mr Clarke did not deny receiving monies that were sought while he was away on vacation in Cuba, she added that he only returned $30,000 - or two-thirds - of the sum paid by Ritchie’s Development while rejecting his claim for wrongful and unfair dismissal. 

The former chief engineer had alleged that the $15,000 had already been paid to a plumber to acquire plumbing supplies, but no records of these transactions were produced.The Industrial Tribunal, in its decision, said Mr Clarke was first hired as an engineer by Courtyard Marriott in September 2017 and spent almost six years with the resort - including his promotion to chief engineer - until his June 2023 dismissal. He was responsible for the hotel’s upkeep and maintenance, recommending contractors and overseeing improvements, and was paid a weekly salary of $1,200.

“In April 2023, the respondents [Courtyard Marriott and LR-NAS] contracted Ritchie’s Development, a private contractor, to renovate 50 bathrooms in the hotel, including the plumbing works as well as other works around the property,” Ms Cooper-Brooks wrote. “The applicant [Mr Clarke] was tasked with overseeing the project.

“It is undisputed that the applicant, while out of the jurisdiction on vacation, demanded that the principals of Ritchie’s transfer $45,000 of the sum paid to them for the renovations into personal accounts belonging to himself and his wife.” Diane McTague, the Courtyard Marriott’s general manager, after learning what had occurred, met with Mr Clarke to address the matter when he returned to work on May 24, 2023.

“The applicant admitted to receiving the funds but claimed that they were required to engage a plumber (a Mr Roker) to purchase plumbing supplies and complete the plumbing works,” Ms Cooper-Brooks added. “The respondents rejected this explanation, noting that plumbing was already included in Ritchie’s contract and all supplies had been provided by the respondents.

“Ms McTague instructed the applicant to return the funds to Ritchie’s Development. The applicant returned $30,000 of the funds, but insisted that the remaining $15,000 had already been paid to the plumber for the purchase of plumbing supplies. However, he failed to produce any evidence to the respondents of Mr Roker’s existence, or any invoices, receipts or payment records to Mr Roker.

“He was then placed on suspension pending investigations. Following his suspension, the respondents terminated the applicant’s employment alleging dishonesty, gross misconduct, gross negligence and breach of trust and confidence by letter dated June 20, 2023.” Courtyard Marriott reiterated that “without our knowledge, authority or consent [you] took $45,000 from a contractor, Ritchie’s Development, monies which lawfully did not belong to you”.

Mr Clarke, though, alleged that he had acted on Ms McTague’s instructions in asking Ritchie’s Development “to hold the funds for hiring a plumber at a later date” - a claim that the resort asserted was rejected by the contents of What’s App communications as well as a letter from the contractor.

Ritchie’s Development, in a June 8, 2023, letter asserted that Mr Clarke told them he was the person “in charge and the only one we can have dealings with”. The contractor alleged that he needed an invoice “for work to be done outside the hotel”, and “also insisted that a portion of those funds were to be transferred to his accounts for work to be done by himself on the premises”.

Ritchie’s alleged it was told to pay the $45,000 in three separate transactions, each worth $15,000, which it did between May 12, 2023, and May 16, 2023, into three different bank accounts. One was in Mr Clarke’s name, while the other two belonged to his wife.

“I knew this couldn’t be right, but he kept insisting he was in charge so I transferred three separate transfers of $15,000 for three separate accounts,” Ritchie’s Development added. “We waited on him to do the plumbing work, which he stated part of that money was for. Work was not moving forward as he was not on the hotel premises. I asked my workers to be on the look-out for someone else in charge so we can find out what’s going on.”

After meeting Ms McTague, when she called to check on the progress with the bathrooms, Ritchie’s Development explained what had happened and she immediately demanded he repay the $45,000. “Immediately after the meeting with Diane, Mr Clarke called us (Colton Ritchie, Robin Ritchie, Soares Vargas) into room 126 and at this time he insisted he is in control of all the bids that come through the hotel and will make certain we don’t get a job at this hotel,” Ritchie’s Development added in its June 8, 2023, letter.

Ms Cooper-Brooks said that, when Ms McTague was asked how Mr Clarke could have forced Ritchie’s to pay him the money, explained that there were four renovation phases at the Courtyard Marriott featuring 200 bedrooms and 50 bathrooms per contract and the contractor was only working on the first phase at that time.

“She further explained that the Ritchie’s reported that they were threatened by the applicant that they would lose the other three phases of work if they did not pay him money,” the Industrial Tribunal verdict added. Mr Clarke, though, asserted that he had always acted with “professionalism, commitment and honesty” in securing funds allocated for upgrades to the Courtyard Marriott.

He alleged that the $45,000 belonged to Ritchie’s Development, not the resort, and as a result Courtyard Marriott suffered no loss and the work was completed. Mr Clarke also claimed that he kept Ms McTague informed of what was happening at all times, but alleged that “she attempted to create the impression that he took the money without her knowledge or consent”.

“He explained that his reason for demanding the return of the funds was that Ritchie’s had threatened to charge the respondents 15 percent of its money, which was previously agreed to be held by them for the plumbing project that was to be completed by another vendor,” the Industrial Tribunal said of Mr Clarke’s explanation.

“Additionally, Ms McTague was aware that Ritchie’s had indicated they did not do plumbing, and he believed that if he had allowed Ritchie’s Development to retain 15 percent of the funds, Ms McTague would have held him responsible. 

“Therefore, although he was out of the jurisdiction at the time, after becoming aware of Ritchie’s stance and noting that Ms McTague did nothing to enforce the agreement with them, he decided to secure the $45,000 until he was able to be present and manage the project himself.”

However, Mr Clarke alleged that Ms McTague “attempted to portray him as a thief” when he should have been praised for securing the Courtyard Marriott’s funds. The resort, though, countered that he had “improperly procured or extorted and concealed money that belonged to them. Furthermore, the money was paid to Ritchie’s Development, whom they had engaged to perform work on its property, and did not belong to the applicant”.

Courtyard Marriott also alleged that Mr Clarke had “failed to give a reasonable, plausible or sensible explanation for the urgency with which he demanded money from Ritchie’s while he was outside the jurisdiction of The Bahamas, and while they were in the middle of performing work at the respondents’ hotel, suggesting that the applicant needed the money to finance his vacation. 

“Furthermore, the respondents submitted that the applicant, by his own admission, instructed Ritchie’s to transfer the money into his personal account as opposed to sending it to the hotel’s bank account, which could have easily been accomplished as Ritchie’s was working on-site at the hotel during that time”.

The Industrial Tribunal ruled in the Courtyard Marriott’s favour, finding it had “reasonable grounds” to support the position it had taken and conducted the necessary investigation into Mr Clarke’s alleged misconduct. The resort said it had provided all necessary materials for the renovation project, meaning that the $45,000 was not needed for plumber or associated supplies as alleged by Mr Clarke.

“The respondents submitted that the applicant’s evidence that Ritchie’s had started demolition on the 50 bathrooms at the hotel about one or two weeks before he went on leave to Cuba begs the question of why he rushed to get his hands on the money, as there was no risk of Ritchie’s absconding with it,” Ms Cooper-Brooks wrote of Courtyard Marriott’s position. 

“They had only begun the project, and any issues could have been discussed and settled once the applicant and Ms McTague were back in office. Furthermore, evidence was presented that Ms McTague had agreed to give another phase of the job to Ritchie’s. 

“Therefore, if Ritchie’s had received the patio job plus the job to renovate the 50 bathrooms, there was no urgency for the applicant to demand the money from them, as they were already present on the property. Additionally, taking into account the evidence from Ms McTague that there were an additional 150 rooms to be renovated, Ritchie’s was not leaving the respondents in the near future….,” the Industrial Tribunal added.

“Furthermore, the applicant admitted to requesting and receiving the said funds, and to directing them to be deposited into his personal bank accounts. He did not fully reimburse the Ritchies the total funds received, and neither did he produce any evidence of the funds being transferred to a plumber.” And, despite Mr Clarke’s assertion that the plumbing project was urgent, he remained outside The Bahamas for two weeks after receiving the $45,000.