Wylie Clarke, a lawyer representing the University of the South Pacific (USP), stated that the authority to appoint the vice-chancellor of USP lies with the USP Council, not the staff. This assertion was made during a court hearing presided over by Justice Chaitanya Lakshman, who is reviewing a request to impose an injunction that would prevent further strike action at the institution.
The university’s two unions, the Association of the University of the South Pacific Staff (AUSPS) and the University of the South Pacific Union (USPSU), had conducted a strike from October 18 to October 24, primarily in response to the dismissal of Dr. Tamara Osborne-Naikatini, a matter that has greatly upset the unions.
Prior to the strike, communication concerning Dr. Osborne-Naikatini’s situation took place through emails. On July 12, the unions formally requested her reinstatement, to which the vice-chancellor responded by outlining the rationale for the denial, citing serious misconduct regarding the disclosure of confidential information.
Following this exchange, the USPSU sought approval from the Registrar of Trade Unions to conduct a strike to remove the vice-chancellor for alleged inefficacy. Mr. Clarke noted that the registrar permitted the unions to hold a secret ballot regarding the strike. Subsequently, the university reported an employment dispute to the employment secretary, who determined on October 9 that the dispute was vexatious and ruled that the unions had exhausted their legitimate rights under the Employment Relations Act.
However, Mr. Clarke contends that the refusal from the permanent secretary to accept the dispute notice was unlawful since they are obliged to accept all employment disputes. He also mentioned that while the majority voted for the vice-chancellor’s removal, the unions expanded their demands to include Dr. Osborne-Naikatini’s reinstatement during the strike.
Clarke criticized the strike’s short notice, asserting it conflicted with sections of the Employment Relations Act, while the unions’ lawyer, Siddharth Nand, defended the legality of the strike, asserting that the university’s response amounted to intimidation and was not in good faith. Nand argued that the current application to court lacks legal grounds, and he has requested its dismissal, noting that a ruling is expected on November 27.
This ongoing dispute underscores the complexities surrounding employment relations in higher education, as both sides navigate the challenges of governance and labor rights. While tensions are high, there is an opportunity for dialogue and resolution that could ultimately enhance the working environment and accountability within the university.
Leave a comment