IS WIFOL’S LEADERSHIP DISPUTE PUTTING UNION DEMOCRACY TO THE TEST?

A new president, a disputed election, a court challenge—and now, a resignation that has left WIFOL’s executive board with just two members.

What began as a change in leadership at one of Sint Maarten’s labour organizations has developed into a wider controversy over union democracy, financial accountability and the rights of dues-paying members.

But who has the legitimate authority to lead WIFOL—and how will the dispute be resolved?

The Workers Institute for Organized Labour Association, known as WIFOL, elected a new executive board during a congress held on September 17.

Joanice David Richardson was elected president, replacing longtime leader Theophilus Thompson. Elton Jones and Ashma Berkel were also elected to the board.

However, Berkel has since resigned, effective October 1, saying she can no longer see eye to eye with the new president.

Her departure leaves only Richardson and Jones on the executive board.

Meanwhile, former president Theophilus Thompson has filed an injunction through attorney Cor Merx, challenging the September 17 election.

The dispute has also drawn public criticism from veteran trade unionist and educator Claire Elshot-Aventurin.

In an open letter published October 11, Elshot questioned whether WIFOL’s constitution and bylaws were properly followed during the leadership transition.

She raised concerns about membership eligibility, election procedures, the participation of dues-paying members and whether the required financial reporting had been completed.

Elshot also questioned the reported interruption of a financial audit that she says was being prepared ahead of a planned October congress.

She called for the preservation of financial records, the completion of the audit and a review of the leadership change against the union’s governing rules.

If those rules were not followed, she argued, the disputed process should be set aside and a properly organized election held.

But these concerns remain allegations and questions raised by Elshot—not established findings of misconduct.

The available reports do not establish whether the September election violated WIFOL’s constitution, nor do they provide a court ruling on the challenge.

Berkel’s resignation adds another dimension to the controversy, but her stated disagreement with the new president does not, by itself, establish that the election was improper.

For WIFOL members, the immediate questions concern the validity of the leadership change, the status of the executive board and the availability of financial information.

For Sint Maarten’s wider labour movement, the implications go further.

Trade unions regularly demand transparency, fair procedures and accountability from employers and government.

Elshot’s argument is that those same standards must apply within the unions themselves.

With a legal challenge underway and the executive board reduced to two members, WIFOL now faces a significant test of internal governance.

Will the courts, the union’s governing rules and its membership provide a clear path forward—or will this leadership dispute deepen divisions within Sint Maarten’s labour movement?