PHILIPSBURG--The injunction procedure filed by dismissed National Institute for Professional Advancement (NIPA) Director Vernon Richards was handled by the Judge of the Court of First Instance on Wednesday. Richards submitted an injunction petition in which his lawyer, Cindy Marica-Henderson, requested her client’s dismissal to be declared null and void, as well as payment of outstanding salaries from July until September, and continued salary payments until the labour contract is legally dissolved. Richards also demanded reinstatement as Director at NIPA.
The judge advised parties to discuss a settlement, possibly through intervention of a third party. NIPA’s attorney Reynold Groeneveldt stated that maybe the Minister of Education would be the right person with which attorney Jason Rogers, who presented the pleadings in Court on behalf of his colleague Marica, said he was willing to discuss a settlement.
Parties are to advise the judge by October 7 whether they agreed to a settlement. If not, judgment is to follow in both cases.
Richards received the support of NIPA staff members, who signed statements reading that he was a “very capable, charismatic and professional Director,” with whom they had a very good relationship. They want Richards back at NIPA as Director as “he did a good job at the school.” NIPA maintained that the reasons for the dismissal were valid.
Simultaneously with the handling of the injunction, NIPA’s conditional dissolution request in which the Court was requested to dissolve the labour agreement, in as far as it was still intact, was also handled.
NIPA claimed that the relationship was damaged beyond repair and that Richards failed to follow school board instructions regarding an open house for which several dignitaries were invited.
Richards’ attorney denied that there were grounds for dissolution and requested the Court to follow him on this.
Marica also filed a conditional counterclaim in the dissolution procedure and requested the Court to award Richards a “reasonable” compensation based on his years of service, in the event the judge would still decide to dissolve the agreement.
NIPA board members were also present during the hearing. Attorney Rogers indicated that the relationship was not damaged beyond repair. He also pointed out that the mere fact that there was a Statutory Director who would deal with the board and not Richards was enough reasons to reinstate Richards.
In addition, Rogers referred to the fact that the relationship with the staff with whom Richards had to deal on a daily basis was very good, which became apparent from the statements signed by the staff.
