In its ruling, the court decided that Roorda cannot return to work since his employers claim that they have lost confidence in him while Roorda claimed that the Minister of Finance was not authorized to sign the letter of termination. The judge ruled that based on the Accounting Law the Minister of Finance was authorized to enter into contracts as long as it concerned matters that fell within the purview of his budgeting authority. The court held that the same obtained in the Netherlands. Therefore the Minister of Finance had the authority to terminate the contract with Roorda.
The court further ruled that Roorda could not make any demand to be reinstated because he no longer had a contract with St. Maarten.
The judge said that there is no legal obligation to provide work, and in this case there is a labor dispute. During the court hearing it became evident that the Secretary General and the Minister had absolutely no confidence in a working relationship with Roorda. The court held that Roorda was engaging in wishful thinking if he still believed it was possible to have a fruitful working relationship, seeing that the position and responsibilities that Roorda held required mutual trust.
The judge stated that he learned that Roorda had filed a request to hear five witnesses and that was granted.. The court also rejected Roorda's demand to be reinstated and have his salary continued while ordering Roorda to compensate government with Naf. 1000.00 towards their court fees.
Bastiaan Roorda was hired on December 2, 2009 as head of Finance according to a civil law contract.
On March 30th 2011, Roorda informed a senior policy worker in the Ministry of Finance that he intended to file a criminal complaint against civil servants for collecting travel allowances for days they were not traveling, but were on St. Maarten.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic affairs called a meeting of the council of Ministers to be informed about this matter. Roorda was invited. This meeting took place on March 31st, 2011. The Minister of Justice informed Roorda that he could not stop him from filing a criminal complaint, but asked him at the same time if he was not over reacting. Roorda explained his position and insisted on filing an immediate complaint.
Roorda filed his complaint with the Landsrecherche that same day, and upon his return to his office he received a letter dated March 31st, 2011 informing him, that in accordance with his contract and taking into account the notice period of one month the council of ministers had decided to terminate the working agreement with him as per May 1st, because he did not behave as a good employee. In spite of many warnings he had violated the oath of secrecy by giving information to third parties without prior permission from his superiors or the Minister. He was placed on non-active duty and ordered to return the keys to his office and to return all documents to the acting Secretary General of Finance Ms. Sherry Hazel.
On April 15th 2011 his lawyer Maarten Le Poole informed the council of Ministers that their letter was not of consequence because only the Governor was authorized to terminate Roorda. In addition, he said that the reasons for termination were not reasonable, because a contracted worker who is considered the same as a civil servant cannot be reproached for complying with a legal responsibility. Roorda summoned Country St. Maarten to allow him to return to work.
In a letter dated April 7th, 2011, Roorda's lawyer requested the Minister of Justice explain exactly what facts formed the basis for his accusation that Roorda had violated the oath of secrecy.
In a letter dated April 15th, 2011, the government's lawyer answered that Roorda had given highly sensitive information about the pension premiums to the CFT without the permission of the Minister, or his direct superior, Ms. Sherry Hazel. This all took place during the politically sensitive 2011 budget debate. Furthermore, it was pointed out the intention to dismiss Roorda had already been taken before he had filed the criminal complaint concerning irregularities with travel allowances which he claimed to had uncovered. So the complaint was not on the basis for his dismissal,
Furthermore, it was pointed out there were doubts about Mr. Roorda's loyalty to the St. Maarten's government. The Minister heard in November of last year that Roorda had been telling third parties that St. Maarten should be placed under higher supervision. This was brought to the attention of Roorda. Additionally, information reached the Minster that Roorda had been bad mouthing St. Maarten and the Finance department. The violation of the oath of secrecy and the negative comments about St. Maarten the lawyer concluded had led to a loss of confidence in the ability of Mr. Roorda to function as head of Finance.
Roorda's lawyer contested these claims in a letter of April 18, 2011 stating that St. Maarten was aware that the issue of pension premiums had already come to the attention of the CFT. The letter concluded by regretting the fact that the reason for ending the contract seemed contrived and arrived at after the fact, but still government was holding fast to its position. Roorda's lawyer stated he remained ready to perform the agreed tasks.
Roorda requested the court to allow him to continue working and to continue paying him his salary until he had been lawfully dismissed.
In the summary injunction, Roorda claimed his working relationship still existed and that in a substantive case he would be reinstated. He stated that he was ready and willing to work, but St. Maarten was not making use of his services, so he was entitled to his salary.