Over two hundred former BTL employees demand severance after landmark CCJ ruling
BELIZE CITY, Mon. Nov. 24, 2025
Some 215 former employees of Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL) – and counting – all of whom served the company for more than five continuous years, are renewing demands for severance payments. The push follows the Caribbean Court of Justice’s landmark November 5th ruling in the case of another ten former employees of BTL who also sought severance.
Four former presidents of the Belize Communications Workers Union (BCWU) wrote the Chairman of BTL, Markhelm Lizarraga, on November 13, outlining why the group must be paid severance benefits. The letter notes that the former employees all fit into similar categories as the ten successful litigants in the recent CCJ case: some retired mandatorily at age 55 under their Collective Bargaining Agreement, others retired voluntarily under early retirement packages, while some resigned after long-standing service.
The CCJ unanimously ruled that the ten former employees were entitled to severance payments under the Labour Act despite having received pensions. BTL argued that severance was already covered under its pension plan introduced in 1995, but the CCJ determined that this did not extinguish the statutory right to severance. Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay, one of the attorneys for the ten appellants, explained that under the ruling, pension and severance must be paid separately, or severance must continue to accrue as a portion of the non-contributory pension benefit.
Among the former BCWU presidents who wrote BTL are Paul Perriott, Leann Bardalez Perriott, Dwight Gentle, and Michael Augustus. Their letter cites Section 183 of the Labour Act and the CCJ’s recent ruling which invalidated waiver clauses in retirement agreements and confirmed that pensions do not replace severance.
Paul Perriott today told Amandala,“We’ve been asking for this severance for years. By law we should have gotten it.” He informedthat they received a first letter from BTL acknowledging their communication and promising to review their claims. Subsequently, Perriott says about 60 former employees were informed that they would be paid severance, given that they had left the company within the last six years. However, Perriott says the remaining 140+ “have been told that we’re out of that six-year criteria.” According to Perriott, the six-year limitation being cited by BTL is based on tort and contract law, not labour law; and their legal advice is that it does not apply to them. The retirees are now preparing a second letter to BTL, insisting that this six‑year cut-off is invalid.
Perriott expressed hope that BTL will do the right thing and spare them from having to go to court as did the other ten former employees. If BTL refuses to make the payments, Perriott says the retirees are prepared to escalate the matter.
Perriott says some former employees have passed away, but their estates could be entitled to the payments, and they have started collecting information from spouses of deceased workers so that they can receive the benefit.
In the case of the ten former employees who took the matter all the way to the CCJ, the outstanding payments amount to an estimated $300,000; and with over 200 former employees now demanding severance, the potential liability could reach into the millions.
