No evidence provided

Due process was not followed by the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT) in dismissing about 70 lecturers on May 11, 2018. On that day, I was among eleven lectures who were wrongly and arbitrarily fired from the Centre for Education Programmes (CEP) as part of the University’s stated “restructuring exercise.”

The steps of due process include the following: (i) consultation with the affected employee, (ii) prior notice of dismissal, (iii) presentation of evidence by the employer, (iv) opportunity for the employee to respond, (v) representation of the employee by an attorney, (vi) notice of dismissal, (vii) the right to appeal, and (viii) the right to judicial review.

The Judge in the case of Johnson vs Board of Regents in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in the USA stated that “the minimal safeguards should include: (1) furnishing each affected faculty member with a reasonably adequate written statement of the basis for the initial decision to lay off: (2) furnishing each faculty member with a reasonably adequate description of the manner in which the initial decision had been arrived at: and (3) making a reasonably adequate disclosure to each faculty member of the information and data upon which the decision makers had relied.” The plaintiff, Glenn Johnson, was dismissed from his job in the school due to budget cuts.

Cases and laws involving evidence for dismissals

In the dispute between the Bank and General Workers’ Union and Home Mortgage Bank (TD 140 OF 1997), the Judges ruled on the 22^nd May 2018 that the employer of the plaintiff was “required to give a reason or reasons for the termination and the worker was entitled to have such reasons or reasons before the termination to enable him to make any representation which he wished to make to the Employer concerning the proposed termination.” They found that “the Employer’s failure to give such reason or reasons was in breach of the principle of good industrial relations practice.”

What is equally important in this case is that the Judges ruled that contractual terms cannot trump due process (“the employer merely relied upon its contractual right to terminate the contract by giving of termination notice to the worker” (Page 112). Clause 6.12.2 of my contract with the UTT states that my Employer has the right to dismiss me or terminate my contract “at any time during the remaining life of this contract due to unforeseen changes in its operational requirements, subject to the provision of one (1) month’s written notice …..” My letter of dismissal stated that UTT gave me forty-five (45) days’ notice of dismissal (albeit immediate), but failed to follow due process. Dr Judy Rocke and the UTT failed to provide me (us) with the reasons and criteria for my lay-off, and information and data upon which that decision was based.

The ILO’s Termination of Employment Convention (No. 158) stipulates that “provisions must be made so that the burden of  proving  the  existence  of  a  valid  reason  for  the  termination  rests  on the  employer,  and  the competent  appeal  body  is  empowered  to  reach conclusions on the reason for the termination (Page 2).

The Global Practice Guide in the Labor and Employment Desk Book (2012) also emphasises the constitutional right of, and fair procedures to be afforded to, an affected employee: “The employee is entitled to be aware of all the evidence against him/her and to respond to such allegations” (Page 138). Where is the evidence that I was sacked because I was a “surplus” lecturer who became “redundant” in the university’s “restructuring exercise”? And why wasn’t that data provided to me (us) before, or at the moment of my (our) dismissal.

No redeployment offered

As part of the due process procedure, the UTT also failed to provide evidence that I (we) could not have been redeployed in another programme in the same university before dismissal.

In this additional instance, the UTT breached its own human resources policy outlined in its official published Handbook. In Policy Ref. No. HR 17, Clause v, the Separation Policy states:

“Where it is determined that the University is overstaffed in any area of its operations and the surplus staff cannot be reasonably employed in another area, the University will consider retrenchment as a final option.”

As the only qualified anthropologist (Ph.D., University of Florida) in the UTT, I could have been relocated to the Academy for Arts, Letters, Culture and Public Affairs. Dr. Hollis “Chalkdust” Liverpool is the Head of the Academy as well as a member of the UTT’s Board of Directors. At 78 years old, he reportedly and unethically draws two salaries from the same cash-strapped university.