JTA sued for accepting government pay offer | Main articles

The union representing teachers in Jamaica is now embroiled in a lawsuit filed by a former president that seeks to overturn its current three-year pay deal with the government, court documents show.

Former Jamaica Teachers Association (JTA) president Sonja Harrison argues in the lawsuit that the virtual vote by special delegates – held in March last year – to accept the salary offer presented by the Ministry of Finance and Public Service was in violation of JTA statutes.

“Article 14 of the (JTA) constitution explicitly states that voting must be conducted by the assembly of delegates in a physical location and not virtually,” she said in an affidavit obtained by The Sunday Gleaner.

According to the lawsuit, Article 14 is similar to Article 13, which deals with the holding of the union’s annual conference.

“In both cases, delegates may only vote in physical presence, by show of hands or when secret ballot is permitted.”

“The applicant therefore argues that the acceptance of the current salary awarded to the members of the JTA is void on the grounds that the JTA was not duly constituted when it voted to accept the government’s offer,” Harrison argued.

The virtual conference where delegates voted to accept the government’s pay offer was chaired by Harrison in her capacity as JTA president at the time, according to executive members.

She acknowledged in her complaint that she had proposed that the conference be held online, but said this was based on advice from the secretariat. Harrison also noted that online meetings and conferences were “standard practice” due to the COVID-19 pandemic. .

At the start of the pandemic in March 2020, the government enacted rules under the Disaster Risk Management Act (DRMA) that, among other things, imposed limits and included nighttime curfews. These rules were withdrawn in March 2022, a year before the now-controversial virtual vote by special delegates.

Request five statements

The complaint, filed last Wednesday in Supreme Court by the law firm Hugh Wildman & Company, seeks five declarations, including an order that the vote that took place at the March 12, 2023, special delegates conference was “unlawful” because it “did not comply with the JTA Constitution.”

Harrison also wants the court to declare the election result “null and void and of no legal effect,” saying the delegates “failed to vote in accordance with Article 14 of the JTA Constitution.”

About 80% of delegates present voted in favor of the three-year deal, which took effect April 1, 2022. It includes a guaranteed minimum 20% increase in base pay after tax deductions.

Harrison raised eyebrows when she left the contract signing ceremony at the Ministry of Finance office in downtown Kingston, leaving other members of the JTA executive to sign.

The lawsuit also seeks a declaration that the JTA Constitution does not provide for a special meeting to be held by online voting and a declaration that, under the JTA Constitution, a special conference must be convened with the physical presence of all delegates participating in the vote and not by virtual voting.

Outgoing JTA President Leighton Johnson confirmed he was aware of the lawsuit but declined to comment.

“There is an ongoing case, so I will not comment at this time,” he said. The Sunday Gleaner contacted Friday.

This could present a dilemma.

A legal victory for Harrison could present a dilemma for more than 30,000 teachers — including the former JTA president — who have already received billions of dollars in salary and back pay under the new pay pact, one veteran educator said.

The three-year agreement is due to end next March.

“More than 30,000 teachers are affected by this negotiation. If she obtains all the requested declarations, what will be the remedy?”

“How would this problem be solved?” the educator asked.

However, according to a senior lawyer, salaries and retroactive payments made to teachers under the three-year pact would not be affected if the court sided with Harrison.

“It would certainly affect the decision and everything would be overturned, but I don’t think the pay rise would be affected because the government’s processes for granting the pay rise were fully compliant with the law and valid,” said the lawyer, who did not wish to be named.

“What would have been invalid was the approval and the vote of the JTA.”

Harrison disclosed in her affidavit that in the days following the special delegates’ conference, she sought and received legal advice regarding the legality of the vote to accept the salary offer made by the Department of Finance.

According to the former JTA president, the legal opinion stated that the vote “was not in accordance with the JTA constitution.”

Harrison said she alerted JTA Secretary General Dr. Mark Nicely to the “irregularity” and sent him an email dated March 31 last year. She said Nicely responded by email the same day, but the details of his response were not included in the affidavit.

[email protected]