PHILIPSBURG: --- An escrow arrangement intended to settle outstanding payments to 22 workers on the St. Maarten General Hospital project is being finalized, according to information Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Claret Connor provided to SMN News following its reporting on the unpaid wage claims.
The response states that FINSO and its former subcontractor, Technostyle, agreed at a recent court hearing to prioritize the workers’ outstanding payments before proceeding with their broader contractual dispute. However, the information provided does not confirm that the escrow account has been funded or that workers have been paid.
Connor explained that he sought information through SMMC’s project representative. The response expressly identifies the contractor as the source of the account, noting that SMMC has neither access to the documentation between FINSO and Technostyle nor Technostyle’s perspective.
That distinction matters: the response provides the contractor’s explanation of the dispute, not an independently established account from all parties.
According to Connor, the 22 individuals are foreign workers employed by Technostyle, a Panamanian subcontractor FINSO engaged to perform structural work on the hospital project from the fourth quarter of 2025 through 2027.
The response states that all workers obtained the required labor and residence permits in coordination with the ministries of VSA and Justice.
It further explains that FINSO engaged Sint Maarten-based Global Resourcing to ensure compliance with local tax and social insurance obligations, while Technostyle was responsible for paying the workers.
Competing Accounts of Employment Responsibility
The explanation raises a central issue already identified in SMN News’s October 12 report: the distinction between the companies’ commercial arrangements and the obligations contained in the workers’ employment agreements.
That report described a petition naming Global Resourcing as the employer and defendant. The worker’s representative maintained that Global Resourcing signed the employment agreement and undertook to pay the salary, rejecting an anticipated argument that payment responsibility rested with Technostyle. Those remain claims on the worker’s behalf, not findings established by a judgment.
Connor's response does not explain how the contractor’s description of Technostyle’s payment responsibility reconciles with the employment agreement identified in earlier reporting.
FINSO Attributes Breakdown to Disputed Contract Termination
According to the contractor’s account, FINSO identified quality issues with Technostyle’s work after several months and ultimately terminated the subcontract.
Technostyle disputed the termination. Both companies, represented by legal counsel, subsequently filed claims concerning lost profits, damages, breach of contract, and related matters, the response states.
FINSO alleges quality issues as part of its account of the contractual breakdown. The material supplied does not include Technostyle’s response or a court finding establishing those allegations.
The response says it appears Technostyle did not fully pay its workers after the contract ended. Workers also filed claims with Global Resourcing under their employment agreements but were referred to Technostyle or FINSO, according to the information supplied.
FINSO reportedly offered Technostyle a settlement several months ago covering work performed and related obligations through the termination date. The response states that Technostyle declined that offer, but does not provide the proposed amount, its detailed terms, or Technostyle’s reasons for rejecting it.
Judge Reportedly Recommended Jointly Funded Account
At a recent hearing in Sint Maarten, the parties reportedly agreed to follow the judge’s recommendation to address outstanding worker payments before continuing the wider termination dispute.
According to the response, the judge proposed an escrow account funded equally by FINSO and Technostyle, with the money used to pay the workers.
Connor was informed that the parties’ lawyers are finalizing the account’s terms and conditions.
No hearing record, written order, escrow agreement, total payment amount or firm disbursement date accompanied the response. It therefore remains unclear precisely which claims the proposed arrangement will cover and when workers will receive their money.
Contractor Says Working-Hours Issue is not disputed
The response also addresses the reported difference between a 40-hour employment agreement and a 55-hour project schedule.
According to the contractor’s account, the issue is not disputed: payments before the dispute were based on actual, approved hours, and outstanding payments will be calculated on the same basis.
However, payment for recorded hours and the calculation of contractual overtime are separate questions. The response does not specify the rates to be applied or explain whether the workers and their representatives accept the proposed calculation.
SMN News’s earlier report described an individual petition seeking regular wages, overtime, vacation pay, termination-related compensation and a statutory increase for delayed payment. The US$37,660.67 stated in that petition concerned one worker, rather than the combined claims of all 22.
The minister’s response does not establish whether the escrow arrangement will address all those categories or only outstanding payments for work performed.
Payment Expected, but Completion Unconfirmed
The response states that SMMC has no contractual relationship with Technostyle and characterizes the matter as a contractual dispute between FINSO and its subcontractor being litigated in court.
Connor concluded that he understood payments to Technostyle’s workers were expected to be resolved shortly.
For the 22 workers, the proposed escrow arrangement offers a possible route to payment. The outstanding question is whether that arrangement will now produce an agreed calculation, a funded account, and an actual payment date.
