[My Ontario Teacher + Union Acronym Guide list is @ Dictionary]
Guest Blogger: Mr. Cafferky is well known on my site for his articles last year on the OECTA MOU, the Brock Decision this fall, as well as for his participation in the dissident Metro 7 teachers group, whom joined in the OECTA MOU ORLB compliant. Here's is his latest blog:
The Reinstate Richard Brock Campaign.
I
write this article to explain (in detail) why I oppose OECTA’s dismissal of
Richard Brock, president of Halton elementary unit. At first I must apologise
for the length of my analysis; however, some problems are just too important to
be argued with sound bites. To make
amends for today’s lengthy offering, I promise to submit in the next few days a
petition co-authored by a group of concerned OECTA members—it will be succinct.
After OECTA signed the MoU with the McGuinty Government, a group of concerned
members challenged OECTA at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). Although
several complaints were possible, we concentrated on the right to ratify our
contract. To this day it is scarcely believable OECTA disputed our right to
vote on our contract, arguing at the OLRB that when the sole bargaining agent
(OECTA) signs a binding contract with the government instead of with the direct
employer there is no need for a ratification vote. Clearly, something is
fundamentally broken and dysfunctional at the heart of our union.
We were joined at the OLRB by four
OECTA units, including the Halton Elementary unit, represented by its
president, Richard Brock. These four units had independently determined that
the sudden switch to provincial bargaining by OECTA had significantly
disadvantaged their members. One must emphasize that while the process was
civil, it was decidedly adversarial with neither side inclined nor willing to exchange
casual courtesies. This adversarial friction continued into the AGM where
president O’Dwyer was narrowly voted out of office, demonstrating that the MoU
had deeply divided OECTA.
Supporters of the MoU in the units and in the bureaucracy were bitterly disappointed
with Mr. O’Dwyer’s defeat. Thus,
it came as no surprise that some advocates for the MoU lodged a complaint
against Richard Brock, the leading anti-MoU voice in our Association. What did
come as a surprise was the outcome of that complaint and the procedures and
process employed in arriving at that outcome. This article concentrates on the
procedures and the process concerns but for completeness I must briefly comment
on the punishment.
The discipline panel that
tried Richard Brock declared that in their judgment he had injured in some
manner the interests of the Association. As punishment, they suspended his
membership privileges for two years, which automatically set aside his election
as president of the Halton Elementary Unit. This discipline panel meted out one
of the most severe punishments in our Association’s seventy-year history, a
penalty of such extreme severity that it inevitably raises questions whether
the punishment fits the crime. A puzzling aspect of the Brock case is
determining the exact offence he is supposed to have committed. The sole body
that has unambiguous authority to declare the interests of the Association is
the Provincial Executive. In this case the Provincial Executive failed to warn
Mr. Brock that his conduct was injurious to the interests of the association
(that finding was made by the panel at a much later date) which contradicts
OECTA’s long standing insistence that our employers must warn teachers and at
least offer some corrective intervention before administering severe punishment
or dismissal. When dealing with our employers, we object to any form of ambush,
insisting on documentation and warnings before action is taken. What justifies
OECTA to conduct its internal affairs by a markedly inferior standard to what we
demand from our employers? It is an outrage.
Furthermore, the punishment
took no account of many extenuating and mitigating circumstances far too
numerous to list in this article. For example, because the MoU was so poorly
negotiated, many implementation problems arose that the secretariat could not
easily resolve which resulted in a near shutdown in the information flow out to
the units. This lack of clarity resulted in all unit presidents operating in
the dark to some degree and with the presidents of the more disadvantaged units
wrestling with intensely confusing and frustrating problems—Richard Brock was
one such president. He repeatedly asked
for information, direction and clarity from the executive and the secretariat,
and just as repeatedly, he received no answer. Given the prevailing climate of tension
and division created by the MoU, the penalty imposed on Richard Brock strikes
me as wildly disproportionate to his alleged offence.
When reviewing the process
and procedures in the Brock trial, one must remember that OECTA is a democratic
association. Democracy is a method of
self-governance that allows the voters to overturn the rulers without a bloody
civil war. However, a democratic victory is tempered by a legal obligation to
respect the rule of law. All mature democracies have the plebiscite and the
rule of law, and OECTA is no exception. In the disciplining of Richard Brock, an
appointed tribunal set aside the valid election of a unit president. Elections
belong to all members of the Association and it is a grave matter for an
appointed tribunal to undo an election as punishment—the issue goes to the core
of who we are. All members of OECTA not only have a stake in the democratic
process of our Association but also have a duty to preserve and protect that
process.
For the past two decades,
the Ontario courts have consistently set higher standards of procedural
fairness in administrative justice cases, especially when those cases affect
the individual’s ability to earn their income. A legitimate discipline process
must respect two principles of natural justice: 1). “nemo judex in sua propria causa
debet esse” – no person, faction, group or
body should be a judge in their own case or more simply said— the process must
be free from bias; 2) “Audi alteram
partem” the other side has a right to be heard in full. The standard for a
tribunal today is that it must not only fulfill the requirements of the
procedure but it must go the extra mile to ensure the process is fair and just.
In the celebrated words of a great British jurist, “it is not merely of some importance,
but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should
manifestly be seen to be done." I anticipate unanimity on fairness because no member of OECTA
wants anything less than an absolutely
fair, impartial, legitimate, professional and just disciplinary process.
Politics in our Association
must be isolated and hermetically sealed from discipline. In this respect, I feel uneasy that Mr. Jarvis
failed to recuse himself from the case when he first received the complaint against
Mr. Brock. From July 5th, 2012 onward, both Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Brock
vigorously advocated their pro- and anti-MoU arguments in the forums of our
Association. These men were political opponents as demonstrated by their
sitting on opposing sides of the table at the OLRB last year. When Mr. Jarvis received the complaint about
Mr. Brock, our procedures outline the following steps:
4.138 The decision of the
general secretary with respect to the question of jurisdiction shall be final.
4.141 Upon receipt
of such written
complaint the general
secretary or designate
shall conduct or cause to be
conducted an investigation into the complaint such that the general secretary can
determine:
4.141.1 if the complaint is
vexatious, frivolous or insubstantial; and
4.141.2 whether a settlement
of the complaint can be effected.
Mr. Jarvis was called on to judge his
opponent’s activities. In the interest of preserving procedural fairness it would
have been preferable if the general secretary designated an impartial member of
the secretariat to handle the complaint from the beginning—justice must be seen
to be done.
Mr. Jarvis referred the
complaint to the discipline board, whose chairperson, Mr. Ryan, was then
obliged to:
4.143 Upon receipt of a
complaint the discipline board chairperson shall appoint a three-member panel
from among the members of the board and shall advise the general secretary of a
hearing date, time and place determined by the panel.
Mr. Ryan appointed himself to the
panel despite his having served as president of Durham, one of the complainant
units against Mr. Brock. The standards of fairness require that the individual
sitting in judgment must be totally detached from the disputing parties; must
be absolutely impartial; must be committed to fairness and truth. Mr. Ryan appointed
to the panel Mr. Tomcko, the immediate past president of Thunder Bay Elementary
unit, a unit that supported the MoU throughout 2012/2013. Mr. Tomcko served as
the chairperson of the audit committee and attended the first vote of the COP on
the MoU where he witnessed the beginning of these bitter disputes.
When the discipline panel
is selected, the Handbook provides for the following procedures:
4.144 Upon receipt of this
advice the general secretary shall serve the complainant(s) and the respondent(s)
with a notice of hearing containing:
4.144.1 the date, time and
place of the hearing;
4.144.2 a statement that the
parties are entitled to appear in person and/or be represented by a member of
the secretariat or an agent (who is not legal counsel);
4.144.3 a statement that if
the parties do not appear at the time scheduled for the hearing, the discipline
panel will consider the matter in their absence without any further notice; and
4.144.4 a statement that the
Association will pay reasonable travel and accommodation costs incurred by the
parties and their agent at the hearing.
4.145 The complainants and
the respondent shall be the parties to the hearing and shall be entitled to
appear in person and, assisted by the secretariat member assigned to each party
or the agent, shall be responsible for the presentation of evidence and the
making of submissions.
4.146 The chairperson
of the discipline
panel shall conduct
the hearing, and at the conclusion of the hearing the panel shall
determine whether the respondent is in breach of the constitution, by-laws,
policies or procedures of the Association
These procedures are
formal and they correspond with Robert’s Rules of Order Page 663, “FORMAL
NOTIFICATION OF THE OFFICER OR MEMBER”. As a reminder, OECTA’s constitution
stipulates that:
1.10 The rules contained in
the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, where they are not inconsistent
with this constitution or any special rules of order the Association may adopt,
shall govern the Association.
Robert’s Rules indicate the formal
process begins with the letter of notification and continues through to the
completion of trial (Robert’s uses the term “trial”). The notification sent to
Mr. Brock failed to mention any special rules of procedure; thus, the formal
rules of procedure are restricted to those found in the Handbook and in section
XX of Robert’s Rules. Neither the Handbook nor Robert’s Rules provides
authority to the chairperson of the panel to set his own rules of procedure.
Much confusion has arisen
regarding the discipline board, the chairperson of the discipline board, the
discipline panel, and the chairperson of the discipline panel. The board and
its chairperson are provided for in the by-laws, while the three-member panel
and its chairperson are selected by the board chairperson under OECTA’s Procedures.
A particular discipline panel has no authority to set its own procedures and
policies on evidence, otherwise we must contemplate the possibility whereby two
members are tried for the same offense under radically different rules of
procedure, a possibility that must be summarily rejected.
Robert’s rules of Order 11th
edition (the latest, published in 2011) states in Section XX under TRIAL
PROCEDURE P. 663-665:
The
trial is a formal hearing on the validity of the charges. At the trial, the evidence
against the accused officer or member is presented by the managers for the
society, and the officer or member has the right to be represented by counsel
and to speak and produce witnesses in his own defense. … If the plea to the charge
is not guilty, the trial proceeds in the following order, the chair first
explaining all the steps, then calling for each of them in sequence: (1)
opening statements by both sides—the managers first; (2) testimony of witnesses
produced by the managers for the society; (3) testimony of defense witnesses;
(4) rebuttal witnesses on behalf of the society; and then on behalf of the
defense, if any; and (5) closing arguments by both sides.… Cross-examination, redirect
examination, and recross examination of witnesses is permitted, and witnesses
may be recalled for further testimony as the occasion may dictate.
The accused not only has the
constitutional right to call witnesses but to recall them if so desired. OECTA’s disciplinary panel denied Mr. Brock’s
constitutional right to call witnesses in his defense. The panel justified its
decision because Mr. Brock had not provided “will-say” statements for his witnesses. The
OECTA Handbook and Robert’s Rules of Order are silent on will-say statements;
therefore, the obligation to provide will-say statements is a procedural rule
of the discipline panel, a rule that cannot nullify Mr. Brock’s constitutional
right.
Mr. Boyle, agent for Mr. Brock, twice asked
Mr. Ryan for a copy of the manual and guidelines being followed and adopted by
the discipline panel. Egregiously and with prejudice to Mr. Brock, Mr. Ryan
ignored these requests. Robert’s Rules is explicit about specifying the details
of the trial. Robert’s Rules of Order, TRIAL PROCEDURE, page 664,
At
any time before the commencement of the trial with the first of the
"preliminary steps" described below, the assembly may, by majority
vote, adopt a resolution to govern the trial specifying details not
inconsistent with the procedures described here*. (The Asterix on this reads as follows "the
assembly may vary the procedures described here through adoption of special
rules of order for disciplinary proceedings either by previous notice and a
two-thirds vote or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership.) The
resolution may include an agenda that establishes times for portions of the
trial, such as time limits for opening and closing statements. If time limits
are imposed, they must allow the defense at least equal time for each element
of the trial as that allowed the managers, and this rule may not be suspended
without the consent of the defense.
Robert’s Rules of Order do not confer
on the chairperson the authority to alter the procedures or the details of
trial. Thus the request by Mr. Boyle to receive a copy of the handbook and
guidelines being followed by the discipline panel was both the constitutional
right and the natural justice right of the accused. Mr. Ryan chose to disclose
neither the authority nor the guidelines he had used to alter the procedure set
out in Robert’s Rules of Order. Constitutional rights always trump procedural
protocol. The discipline panel had a duty to act fairly, to conduct an
impartial trial, and to ensure the accused’s right to present his case in full.
They failed in their duty, conducted a flawed hearing; consequently, rendered an
invalid verdict. As guardians of the
Association’s constitution and by-laws, the executive should take corrective
action and set aside the discipline panel’s ruling.
The discipline panel that
tried Mr. Brock ensnared him in legalistic technicalities so I would like to
adopt the same legalistic spirit to the appointment of the discipline board.
The By-Laws pertaining to
the Discipline Board are:
Discipline Board
2.193 There shall be a
discipline board comprised of six members who shall be appointed by the
provincial executive for a term of no less than three years.
2.194 To be eligible for
appointment to the discipline board, a member shall:
2.194.1 no longer hold
elective office in the Association; or
2.194.2 be a retired member.
2.195 The term of office of
the chairperson of the discipline board shall be as determined by the
provincial executive.
2.196 The duties of the
discipline board chairperson shall be:
2.196.1 to hold a meeting of
the discipline board when the chairperson deems it necessary;
2.196.2 to receive
complaints forwarded by
the general secretary
and deal with
them as required by 4.136 to
4.151;
2.196.3 to submit to the
general secretary an annual report for inclusion in the agenda of the annual
general meeting.
The terms of office for members of
the discipline board are unique in OECTA because they must be explicitly stated
for each member upon appointment. The only restriction on the Executive is that
the term of office must not be less than three years. It would be perfectly
correct for the Executive to appoint a member to the board for five years, and
it would be legal, if not very wise, to appoint a person to the board for seven
or more years. There is no motion in Executive minutes of the appointment of the
discipline board members—presumably one should find six such motions. Consequently, we do not know when these
individuals were appointed, for how long they were appointed, and when their
terms of office expire or whether some of those terms of office have already
expired. The simple truth is that OECTA cannot validate the membership of the discipline
board, and as a result, OECTA cannot certify or validate the terms of office of
these six individuals. Having a discipline board whose members have
indeterminate terms of office contravenes our by-laws: There is no remedy for
the missing terms of office so we must conclude the members of the board were
not validly appointed; hence, the discipline board has no authority. One might
now ask: If OECTA’s Provincial Executive did not appoint the
discipline board, who appointed them? And to what purpose? However tempting, that
is a battle for another day.
In summary: A
valid presidential election for the Halton Elementary Unit was set aside by an
appointed three-member discipline panel. The panel denied Mr. Brock his
constitutional right to call witnesses in his defence on the basis of their
procedural rule of demanding will-say statements, a rule emanating from
guidelines they refused to disclose to the defense. The discipline panel
emanates from a discipline board whose members, contrary to our by-laws, hold
office without receiving the sanction of the Provincial Executive, members
whose individual terms of office are indeterminable and could even be expired. It
is a travesty of justice when a tribunal which cannot establish its own
legitimacy sets aside a valid election on the strength of a legal technicality
that it had created without the authority of the Handbook, Robert’s Rules of
Order or our AGM.
The
Provincial Executive is empowered to run the association between AGM’s in
accordance with the constitution and by-laws of our Association. I call on the
executive to declare the discipline board vacant because the legitimacy of its
appointed members cannot be established, and/or to set aside the decisions of
the discipline panel because the procedure followed by the panel violated Mr.
Brock’s constitutional right to have disclosure of the rules of procedure and
to call witnesses in his defence.
John Cafferky,
Blessed Pope John Paul II Catholic
Secondary School
Scarborough
Next Time: The Petition!
COMMENTS: