Dear Editor,
I was surprised to read (SN June 26) that UG staff union rep, Freddie Kissoon, was displeased with the outcome clearing accused lecturer, Radhay Evan Persaud, of wrongdoing.
I am not familiar with the contents or the strengths of the allegations against Persaud. His guilt or innocence is of no consequence to me. I am simply concerned about the role of the staff union in the hearing process at our premier academic institution.
Normally, a union rep would celebrate when one of its own has been cleared of wrong doing as it is a victory for the staff. Clearly, this was not the case with Persaud. And this would probably be the first time in the history of labour unions that a union rep is not pleased that his colleague is “freed” of a charge of wrongdoing. I am curious about the role of the union in defending the staff at UG.
I served as a union staff representative for seven years in New York accompanying staff to every hearing involving any charge leveled against them. I argued for their innocence even when I knew they were guilty or that my case was weak and they had no chance of being cleared. That was my legal and moral role as the union rep.
The union rep does not have to like the staff or pass judgment on them but to defend them to the best of his ability.
The union rep does not let political affiliation define his role but his professionalism towards a colleague. If a union rep feels he cannot defend a colleague, then he should recuse himself from the case. To do otherwise is unprofessional and borders on incompetence.
I do not know Freddie’s role in the hearing involving Radhay Persaud but it seems to me that he should not have uttered public comments prejudicial to Persaud.
In fact, he should have gone all out to defend Persaud if he were the union’s rep on the committee.
The UG faculty union’s task is to defend its union member to the best of his/her ability.
Vishnu Bisram