The Geothermal Development Company (GDC) wants the court to dismiss a petition filed by some of its employees for allegedly exploiting loopholes in labour laws.

GDC claims that the 62 employees wants to eat from both plates by demanding union benefits while enjoying management privileges.

Through lawyer Cecil Miller, the corporation claims that the employees want to retain allowances reserved for union members under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), such as overtime pay, while at the same time pocketing higher salaries, commuter benefits, and housing allowances reserved for management.

The court heard that the workers redesignated from Grade 8 (unionisable staff) to Grade 7 (management), are now pushing a selfish agenda designed to exploit loopholes in labour rules.

GDC further noted that the High Court has already suspended management guidelines issued in May 2024, making some of the petitioners’ demands “legally untenable.”

“The petitioners want to retain union perks while enjoying management privileges and in the process, deny opportunities for new graduates with equal qualifications. If allowed, taxpayers’ money will be lost irreversibly,” GDC warned.

The court heard that it is standard human resource practice worldwide that management staff are not entitled to overtime pay adding that it has instead introduced a call-out allowance for managers who put in extra hours.

GDC also refuted claims of bias in its medical scheme stating that while unionisable staff can enroll a spouse and six children, management employees are limited to a spouse and four children but with superior benefits for each beneficiary.

According to the petitioners, medical terms for the management are inferior to those of union staff.

This, they added, is a breach of their constitutional rights to equality, fair labour practices and fair remuneration.

They want the court to either reinstate them to union terms or compel GDC to harmonize their pay and benefits with those of comparable public sector workers.

The petitioners argue that their redesignation stripped them of allowances they previously enjoyed under union terms, leaving them disadvantaged compared to peers in similar state corporations.