Guest Blog: OECTA AGM: A Time For Sovereignty!

March break approaches and with it a much appreciated-rest, and the OECTA AGM. My opinion about OECTA and the AGM has changed profoundly over the past two years. Last year’s delegates had all the excitement and all the hope of bringing about regime change. This year we go to the AGM conscious that changing nameplates at the executive does not necessarily change the Association. OECTA has become a 1% and 99% organization: for the elites these are the best of times; for the fee-paying members these are not the best of times. 

OECTA has changed, or perhaps I should say the OECTA elites have changed. A powerful, highly paid, permanent staff runs the Association, resulting in relentless concentration of power at the centre at the expense of the periphery, degrading local bargaining into irrelevance, abolishing all the distinctively local clauses (gratuity, family illness, death benefit, extended health care and so on), corrupting “Service to the Members” with the disdain and contempt that inevitably flows from the gross salary disparity between the many members and the few employees.  

For me, the MoU exposed OECTA’s internal rot, a quasi-feudal segregation of our Association into elite rulers and member serfs. The elites imposed their contract on their school teachers without even pretending to consult us, and without respecting our right to ratify our contract. Any 21^st Century union that deliberately denies its members the right to ratify their contract holds those members in supreme contempt, and I believe that OECTA has the distinction of being the only Ontario union in the past twenty-five years to have deliberately denied 40 000 members the right to ratify their contract. Horrified, six colleagues and I voiced our objections to the absence of a vote by taking OECTA to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. 

In a struggle putting David and Goliath to shame, we faced off against OECTA’s powerful lawyers at the OLRB, those legendary defenders of workers’ rights and champions of classroom teachers. The OECTA lawyers gave a dazzling display, persuading (perhaps intimidating?) the adjudicator that a binding agreement with the Government is not an agreement with the employer; hence, OECTA had no obligation to seek a ratification vote. I still wonder how any labour lawyer would argue against the right of workers to ratify their contract. Now when legal opinions are bandied about, I argue for a second opinion—if it is wise to seek a second medical opinion, why not a second legal opinion?

MoU defenders suggested that the OECTA negotiators signed the MoU to protect units that faced especially hostile contract-stripping boards, and everybody had to accept sacrifices and take one for the team. However, there is an Animal Farm aspect to taking one for the team in OECTA with some of us taking one for the team more than others. The same OECTA staff who  negotiated our cut in salary, the surrender of our banked sick days and other concessions, negotiated for themselves an increase to their salaries (now more than $170K + benefits to match) and they retained their bankable sick days: Apparently, solidarity and taking one for the team is a members’ only privilege.

As if the provocation of the MoU were not sufficient, OECTA staff followed up with the trial and dismissal of the MoU’s single most outspoken critic, staging a trial sorely lacking in procedural fairness and elementary justice. One intractable irregularity in the Brock dismissal is that OECTA’s Discipline Board was never properly constituted; hence, the Board never had the authority to try Richard Brock nor any other member of OECTA. Confronted with the illegality of the trial, staff obtained legal opinion that allegedly says (it was never formally released to members) that the executive’s decision to accept a report and a recommendation from the Discipline Board effectively constituted that Board, even if the report and the recommendation submitted to the executive were out of order. On the strength of this legal opinion the present executive publicly declared they could not alter the decision of the Discipline Board.

The idea that staff could legally usurp the executive’s authority specified in the by-laws led to a widespread demand for a second opinion. I wrote to the executive requesting a response to questions I had about the Brock dismissal. I labelled the letter nonconfidential in the hope this would speed up their reply. My letter did not elicit even an acknowledgement, much less a reply: I remember fondly when membership had its privileges.

Bludgeoned and prodded from various quarters, the executive and staff finally relented and sought a second legal opinion. They agreed to roll the dice but stacked the table by selecting a firm that does much business with OECTA (OECTA spends $millions on legal fees and our contracts are most lucrative for the fortunate few), and by arranging for staff and not the executive to brief the lawyer. The executive and staff have received that second opinion but refuse to release it from which we must adduce that the second opinion confirmed that the Discipline Board had no authority because it was not constituted in accordance with our by-laws.  

Staff has created a mess in their rush to silence MoU critics. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been troubled by the procedural problems and informed President Ryan of their misgivings on January 21, 2014. I quote one sentence from that letter:

Moreover, in light of the procedural fairness concerns that have been raised, this case should be examined and re-considered. Sanctions that suspend a member’s privileges and/or remove them from an elected position should only be imposed when fair procedures are rigorously followed. [ LINK ]

Have the lights gone out in OECTA? Our Association has always sided with the forces of enlightenment. Are we now to forsake our noble tradition simply because the burden has fallen on us, rather than some third party, to be enlightened, to conduct ourselves and our internal affairs by enlightened standards? Enlightened standards in this case mean “fair procedures are rigorously followed.”

The executive has a duty to uphold the by-laws of the Association and to rectify any violation of those by-laws. Upholding the by-laws is a contract they have with people like me—mere members. I believe it is time for the executive to do its duty:

●    The executive must issue a statement about the recent heavy handed purges that have taken place at the Halton Elementary Unit. Specifically, the executive must reassure the membership that they instructed staff to take these deeply troubling measures and that staff were simply following orders when the Halton Elementary Unit voted the wishes of staff and withdrew resolution #132 at a hastily convened and thinly attended general meeting a week before the AGM. 

●    The executive must instruct OECTA staff to stop their zealous enforcement of the decisions of the illegally constituted Discipline Board.  

●    The executive must no longer uphold the decision of this discredited Discipline Board and publicly address the concerns of members and the CCLA by bringing a remedial resolution to the floor of the AGM: Let the sovereign AGM put right what the executive and staff will not.

●    The Executive must seek from OECTA staff a recommitment to the high ideals expected of employees of a Professional Catholic Teachers Association, a commitment to always obey and follow the by-laws and procedures of our Association, emphasizing that it is not the role of members to serve staff; rather, it is for staff to serve the members.

If our executive and staff fail to bring about these remedies, they will not only forfeit their credibility but they will also leave themselves open to the accusation that ill-will motivated both the by-law violations and the unwillingness to find a remedy. 

As I said initially, my opinion of OECTA has changed drastically over the last two years: I yearn for the more wholesome and idealistic union of times past, an OECTA led by courageous men and women dedicated to “Service to the Members” and I just hope somebody will soon do something to save our Association. I am bringing my one vote to the AGM. If any delegate would like to join me in working for a law-abiding, democratic Association that respects due process, adheres to the highest ethical standards and abjures all heavy-handed and bullying behaviour, let’s join forces and maybe this time around we can change more than nameplates. And if the elites try to browbeat, intimidate or bully the AGM with more legal opinions, besides responding with LOL, we can honour the courage displayed in Kiev with the defiance of Patrick Henry’s immortal words: Give me Liberty or give me Death.

John Cafferky, BPJPII CSS

Scarborough,

Toronto Secondary Unit.

cafferj@tcdsb.org

Previous related blogs by Mr. Cafferky:

December 2013: His "Open Letter" questions about the Discipline Panel to the OECTA Provincial Executive for which he still hasn't received any acknowledgement nor reply @ Link

September 2013: " No Justice": His examination of OECTA political elites and their role in the internal decision making process @ Link

March 2013: Prior to OECTA AGM 2013, he contributed "Quo Vadis/ Where are we heading?" @ Link

December 2012: "None Dare Call It Betrayal 2": His 2nd exchange of letters with then OECTA President Mr. O'Dwyer regarding the OECTA MOU @ Link

October 2012: "None Dare Call It Betrayal 1" His 1st letter in the exchange @ Link