Former Jamaica Teachers’ Association (JTA) President La Sonja Harrison has lost her bid to have the Supreme Court nullify the March 2023 agreement signed by the union accepting the Government’s wage offer of a 20 per cent minimum increase in basic salary after tax.

Harrison, who served as JTA president for 2022-2023 and who has since been re-elected for a new term scheduled to begin this year, filed a claim in the Supreme Court last July challenging the validity of the special general meeting held in March 2023, during which the agreement was signed. She argued that the meeting was not convened in accordance with the Articles of Association of the JTA, making the agreement, therefore, “null and void and of no legal effect”.

The veteran educator, who is also the principal of St Faith’s Primary School in St Catherine, sought several declarations from the court, including that the purported special conference was unlawful in that the vote that took place at said conference was not in keeping with the constitution of the JTA.

A total of 776 people participated in that special conference, which was held virtually on March 12, 2023. Of that number, 629 voted to accept the Ministry of Finance’s offer and 147 voted to reject it. Based on the majority vote of the delegates, the Government’s proposal was accepted and the signing was done on March 13, 2023. Harrison, however, did not sign the proposal; instead, it was signed by the president-elect at the time.

She further sought a declaration from the court that the constitution of the JTA does not provide for a special meeting to be conducted online, as well as a further declaration that the online voting that was done on March 12, 2023, was unlawful, null and void and of no effect, in that the delegates did not vote in keeping with section 14 of the constitution of the JTA.

Harrison, who was represented by attorney Hugh Wildman, further sought to have the tribunal declare that, under the constitution of the JTA, any special conference convened must be held with the physical presence of all delegates who participated in the vote, and not by virtual voting and a declaration that under the constitution of the JTA, there is no provision for a virtual conference to be convened as a form of special conference, pursuant to section 14 of the constitution of the JTA.

Harrison, in her evidence presented to the court, argued that she had “a duty to ensure that what was done at the special conference was in keeping with the JTA’s constitution”. To that end she said she sought and obtained legal advice and, based on the advice she received, she concluded that the voting was not done in keeping with section 14 of the JTA constitution, which mandates that all voting at a special conference must be done in the physical presence of all the delegates.

She contended that, since the special conference did not conform to sections 13 and 14 of the constitution, “the vote taken at that special conference was unlawful, null and void, and of no effect”, meaning that “the salary package which was accepted by delegates and given to the members is void as the JTA was not properly constituted in carrying out the vote to accept the Government’s offer”.

Supreme Court Judge Justice Tania Mott Tulloch Reid, in assessing whether Harrison was in the first place even the proper person to bring the claim, said, “If the majority of the members were of the view that the salary package offered by the Ministry of Finance was a reasonable one, this court is unable to comprehend the basis on which this claim is being made by a sole member acting on her own initiative with no instructions from the group of which she is a part.”

“It is also to be noted that the claimant, in bringing this claim, is not acting in a representative capacity. She makes the claim on her own behalf and seeks relief on her own behalf. Her affidavit is sworn on her own behalf as a member of the defendant, and an immediate past president. There is nothing in her evidence which suggests to this court that the remedies she seeks are being sought on behalf of the membership as a whole, although it is clear that any decision made will affect the membership as a whole,” Justice Tulloch Reid said.

In dismissing Harrison’s arguments, Justice Tulloch Reid said, “The meeting at which the decision was taken to accept the counter-offer proposed by the minister of finance, which was done virtually and which vote was taken by a show of hands virtually in 2023, was in accordance with the resolutions passed in 2021 and in keeping with the amendment to the Companies Act, also passed in 2021.”.

In refusing the orders sought by Harrison, Justice Tulloch Reid, in the ruling handed down on January 19, said, “I am of the view that the defendant [JTA] was authorised by its own constitution to accept the wage package that was offered by the Government of Jamaica. My orders are therefore as follows: The orders sought by the claimant in the fixed date claim form filed on July 10, 2024, are refused. The claimant is to pay the defendant costs in the claim which are to be taxed if not agreed [and] the defendant’s attorneys-at-law are to file and serve the judgment.”

Attorneys Caroline Hay, King’s Counsel, and Zurie Johnson instructed by Hay McDowell attorneys-at law represented the JTA.