And the concerned workers are already anticipating that they will also receive much less next year, because of major losses suffered by Petrotrin at the end of last year, even though oil prices remain sky high.

In addition, some workers are also alleging “political interference” in the reported decision by Petrotrin to pay workers a smaller bonus than is due to them.

A high-level Petrotrin source told TnT Mirror that whereas each worker was expected to collect approximately $30,000 after tax, if the money was paid last year, the figure may now be much less than $15,000, despite the change in the tax structure.

He explained: “The Petrotrin/OWTU collective agreement has a variable pay clause, which is, in effect, really a productivity bonus clause.

“It says that once Petrotrin makes more than $300 million profit during the accounting year, then 15 per cent of the excess must be shared among all the employees, including temporary workers, who are on the company’s payroll.”

He explained that the accounting year runs from October of one year to September of the other year.

He added: “Every December, for the past four years, we have received a productivity bonus without fail, even though it comes across as a Christmas bonus.

“Last year, we were initially due to get $7,500 each, after the profits were declared.

“However, we were suddenly told that those were un-audited figures and we were eventually paid only about $4,500.

“In fact, as far as our calculations are concerned, we should have received about $15,000 each.

“Every year there seems to be some juggling with the figures to deny workers their just due.

“We know that the bonus we are paid depends on our productivity, so we work damn hard to ensure a high bonus.

“However, we seem to be dealing with smart men when it comes to declaring the true profits of the company.”

He added: “Last July, Petrotrin’s management told us that each employee will get at least $37,000.

“We would have paid 35 per cent tax on it.

“However, when the time came for payment, the union intervened and said that since the tax would be 25 per cent next year, the payment should be deferred to January.

“There was also an anticipation that the figure could reach as high as $40,000 each or even higher.

“But two things have happened.

“In the first instance, there is a report that the political directorate intervened and called for the figure to be paid to us to be ‘managed’.

“And secondly, because the union, as far as we know, didn’t get a definite figure of the company’s declared profit when the decision was taken to defer payment to January 2006, the company is able to come now and quote a lower figure about what are its profits.

“Petrotrin has now included all sorts of expenses in order to make its profits look less.”

The source added: “We have been told by those in the know that we will get a ‘heart attack’ when we see the ‘little bit’ of money we will be getting in comparison to what was initially promised.

“We were told that the figure has now ‘dwindled considerably’.”

The source further insisted: “The amount of profits Petrotrin made and hence our bonus should have gone up considerably this year because of the extremely high oil prices.

“However, we also expect to get a miniscule bonus at the end of 2006 because of the almost $100m losses suffered by Petrotrin two months ago, as a result of slackness at the Cat Cracker Plant.

“There were times during the unplanned shutdown at Cat Cracker last November, when ships came for products and Petrotrin couldn’t supply them, causing them to go to the O2N2 Plant at Point Lisas, which was previously owned by Petrotrin, for their products.”

The source continued: “But our immediate concern is the bonus which should be paid to us any day now.

“Petrotrin should be made to present proper accounting to the union before the bonus is calculated, to ensure we are not robbed.

“The union did a good thing in suggesting that the payment should be deferred to 2006, so we would pay less tax.

“However, our union leaders made a mistake, it seems, by not getting definite figures before agreeing to the deferment.

“Now the deferment has backfired on us.

“Even with the higher tax structure, we would have gotten more money if the bonus was paid past year, based on the figures which were being quoted then.”