The testimony of Dr. mark Hudson

When the lawyers were talking about scheduling and mentioned that someone named Hudson would be testifying and something about expert witnesses, I thought that maybe I’d be seeing my great-uncle, Wilf Hudson, a long-time USW brother, in court. (He’s 90. Guess not.)

No, it is Dr. Mark Hudson who takes the stand.

Direct Examination – by Garth Smorang

As Dr. Hudson introduces himself as a sociology professor, I still think he is here as an expert witness. Wrong again. Dr. Hudson is here to tell us about what happened with the negotiations between UMFA (the University of Manitoba Faculty Association) and the University, and the strike that happened in 2016, while Dr Hudson was President of UMFA.

After going through the usual preliminaries, Smorang takes Dr. Hudson back to 2016 when UMFA’s collective agreement with the University was up for renewal.

umfa’s 2016 contract

As it always does in preparation for bargaining, UMFA had determined what its members’ priorities were through an extensive information-gathering process. They conducted surveys, had representatives canvass their own departments, and held special meetings to allow people to identify their main concerns. (It seems to be extremely detailed, data-based, and thorough. These are university professors after all.)

The BIG Issue – Wages

Salaries had been an issue for many years, and when the 2016 bargaining came around, salaries were by far and away the biggest issue. On a survey of the salary arrangements of 13 comparable research universities (done through information provided to CAUT (the Canadian Association of University Teachers) U of M professors were last, 13th of 13, in every category.

“This was an enormous concern for UMFA members,” says Dr. Hudson. About 400 members responded to the general survey in preparation for bargaining, and 77% of them identified the salary gap as their number one priority.

The University was just as concerned as UMFA about salaries since the U of M was having trouble recruiting (and keeping) professors because their salaries weren’t competitive. The University’s hands had been tied before (e.g. in 2010 due to the aftereffects of the 2008 financial crisis). But now it was 2016, and the University of Manitoba had the money and the plans to do something about it.

Bargaining Begins …

As President of UMFA, Dr. Hudson was on the Collective Agreement Committee, a group of about 20 people responsible for making decisions about the bargaining process and giving direction to the table team. Dr. Robert Chernomas, a professor of Economics, who had been the chief negotiator for UMFA for many years, led UMFA’s table team.

On the other side of the table, Greg Juliano, Associate Vice-President of Human Resources was in charge of the University’s team (which takes instructions from the University’s Board of Governors). A graduate of the University of Manitoba’s Law School, Juliano had been a lawyer for about 18 years, both in private practice and as General Counsel for the University.

After some preliminary exchanges were unsuccessful, table teams were struck and formal collective bargaining began.

UMFA’s Starting Position

Two accounting professors, Cam and Jan Morrill, had done a thorough analysis of the University’s finances, and concluded that there was around $96 million in the University’s operating budget to address the salary gap. Based on this analysis, UMFA’s proposal was for a one-year agreement that would include a one-time “recruitment and retention” bump of about 13.5%. This would have moved U of M faculty up to 11th of 13 in most of the CAUT categories, “a modest improvement,” as Dr, Hudson describes it.

UMFA, of course, also had other concerns. After salaries, the most important issues included changing the way the University did evaluations, job security for librarian members, and measures to allow more faculty input on University governance, especially on academic matters.

As I sit listening to Dr. Mark Hudson, I keep thinking – what a great prof this guy must be. He ‘s got a great voice, speaks really clearly, is funny and personable … if I had him in university, I would want him to teach all my classes. But there is a sadness in the way he speaks, and he winces occasionally. We are ripping open old wounds here.

The University of Manitoba’s Starting Position

The University was just as concerned about recruitment and retention and Greg Juliano was keen on improving relations with its faculty.

The University’s Budget for 2016/17 was based on an assumption that their funding from the Province was going increase by 2.5%, which gave them room to manoeuvre.

So, on August 3, 2016, the President of the University, Dr. David Barnard, announced that the University was in a healthy financial position and was ready to address the salary gap. Hooray. Good news.

The University opening offer was for a 7% salary increases, 1%, 2%, 2%, 2%, over four years, with a recruitment and retention bump of 17.5% spread out over the same four years. This would move U of M professors up from 13th to 12th.

In this portion of the testimony, Garth Smorang keeps asking Dr. Hudson whether this is better than the University of Saskatchewan. Dr. Hudson keeps saying no, we are only better than Saskatchewan at football.

I’m from Saskatchewan, and a rabid Rider fan, of course, so I haven’t gotten over the Bombers beating the Riders in the Western final two days earlier.

It’s actually pretty funny, but for me, this hurts.frown

UMFA’S Reaction

UMFA thinks the University’s proposal is a good start, and since there seems to be room to move between a 13.5% bump over one year, and 17.5% bump over four years, the bargaining forecast looks positive.

As negotiations continue, UMFA holds a strike vote. It is a standard part of the bargaining process as the Collective Agreement Committee has to know at what point will the members say – nope, not good enough, and we are willing to strike. Deliberations over the strike vote took place from October 11-13. In the end, 86% of UMFA members voted to strike, the highest strike mandate on record. If bargaining wasn’t successful, UMFA would go out on strike on November 1, 2016.

in the meantime …

There’s trouble brewing for both UMFA and the University. At a bargaining meeting on October 12, 2016, Greg Juliano explains that the Ministry of Finance has contacted the University, but they aren’t able disclose the details. Dr. Chernomas is curious, but Juliano can’t say anything other than that he will let them know what he can, and is willing to bargain right up until strike day.

At a subsequent meeting on October 21, Juliano reiterates that he is trying to be transparent but that the situation with the Province is frustrating. UMFA’s table team reports back that there is something going on, but they don’t know what.

Mediation – October 27-30, 2016

The parties had already arranged for mediation to take place October 27-30, 2016, in case they couldn’t reach an agreement.

UMFA’s Collective Agreement Committee spent the morning of the first day of mediation in the usual way. They met with the mediator to go over UMFA’s position and aspirations. Well, this all looks all right.

But, they returned from lunch to be met with a horrifying surprise:

Juliano announced that everything the University had offered before was now off the table.

The University’s new position on wages was – 0% salary increase over one year.

 

And that recruitment and retention bump, you know, the 17.5% over four years that it would take to move U of M faculty from last to second last?

All gone.

UMFA has to decide whether to walk out then and there. (I would have, or would have wanted to anyway.)

If they walk, they strike. So, do they continue to try to at least get something?

They decide to stay, but as Dr. Hudson points out in a wounded way, “any gains we might make elsewhere would have to be remarkable before we could avoid a strike.”

Of course it all fails and UMFA goes out on strike on November 1, 2016.

so, like, was there a reason for this?

Juliano gave UMFA a copy of a letter written by the President of the University. Dr. Barnard. It was addressed to the Premier, and copied to the Minster of Finance, the Minister of Education and Training, as well as Gerry Irving and Rick Stevenson (who we already met in the testimony of Kevin Rebeck).

Dated October 26, 2016, the day before the mediation was set to begin, Dr. Barnard points out that the University had been negotiating with UMFA in good faith for nine months and practically begs the Province to please think again:

“I am respectfully asking you at this 11th hour … as we enter the mediation process and work around the clock towards achieving a successful settlement, to please reconsider, in this particular instance, the decision to impose the salary pause on the University of Manitoba and allows us to continue to bargain in good faith.”

Guess we know what the problem was – the Government of Manitoba.

I wish I had known all this back in 2016. I remember the strike, but didn’t pay that much attention. I assumed that both sides had their reasons. But with this background, UMFA had to strike. What else could they do? Thanks to the government, they were totally screwed.

the strike – november 1-21, 2016

As Smorang asks Dr. Hudson to revisit the memories of the three-week strike, Hudson sighs slightly, and slumps. It wasn’t his fault, but regret and responsibility still seem to weigh on him.

It was a hard time. In addition to all the financial stress of a strike, professors were worried about their students, and whether they would all lose a semester, or even a whole year.

A conciliator was appointed and UMFA has to decide – what will it take to end this strike? They canvass their members and reach a new minimum threshold. The ultimate gains they achieve are relatively slight:

  • They get new language about reducing workload;
  • They get reduced dependence on certain methods of evaluation (instead of eliminated):
  • There is no equivalent job security for librarian members (so nothing at all gained here); and
  • They get some limited inroads on collegial governance on tenure and promotion.

And what about wages? A 0% increase and no recruitment and retention bump at all.

UMFA ends up losing 90% of the value of the University’s original offer, the offer the University itself was not only ready to make, but also considered in its best interests to make. (Dr. Hudson winces again here. So do I.)

the aftermath

Disastrous. There is no other word for the effect this all had on UMFA.

The professors viewed it as a “bait and switch” and bemoaned the fact that the persistent and deepening salary gap made working at the University “hopelessly unattractive” (U of M was now not only just in 13th place, but falling further and further behind).

Some professors were so dissatisfied with the whole process that they wondered why they even bothered to be part of UMFA at all. They had lost faith in UMFA as an organization, and no longer trusted UMFA to be able to act as an effective bargaining agent.

As for the faculty’s relationship with the University, safe to say it was pretty much wrecked. And it went downhill from there. UMFA complained to the Labour Relations Board that the University of Manitoba had engaged in an unfair labour practice.

This is actually a good illustration of why, sometimes, often, or at least certainly in this case, how much you pay people is essential to the question of whether the “quality of the public services Manitobans have come to expect” can be sustained.

The Province might be saving money on these public services, but at a real risk to their value.

the happenings behind the scenes

During the Labour Board hearings, the University had to testify about why they withdrew their original offer and why they couldn’t negotiate or explain. Thus, UMFA got the whole story of what the Province was doing to the University of Manitoba behind the scenes.

Smorang only took Dr. Hudson through a summary in his testimony, but I will fill you in by including some details I found in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

An Agreed Statement of Facts means that both sides agree that these facts exist and are true and accurate as stated. It is a way of avoiding the tedium of having to make sure that every little “i” is dotted and every “t” crossed.

Although the facts are pretty bad here for the Government, it was probably worth it to concede them in the Agreed Statement of Facts. That way they wouldn’t have to put the surrounding documents on the public record, the full text of which would most likely make them look much, much worse.

the GOVERNMENT’S INVOLVEMENT IN UMFA NEGOTIATIONS

September 13, 2016
When the Province learns of UM's 7% wage increase offer including a 7% wage increase, Stevenson is told to contact the University.
September 30, 2016Stevenson calls Juliano and says that it was "highly likely that the Government would be moving on public sector wage control."
October 5, 2016The Public Services Cabinet Committee (responsible for the PSSA) gets updated about the UMFA/UM negotiations.
October 6, 2016Irving and Stevenson meet with Juliano.

Irving tells Juliano:
1. The Government is imposing a 0% wage mandate on the U of M;
2. This was a mandatory order, and non-participation was not an option;
3. “We aren’t asking; we are telling.”

The Government was worried that the 7% offer would set a bad precedent and a pattern for other public-sector bargaining.

Juliano was told that he was “free” to go back to the bargaining table and tell UMFA that the 7% offer was withdrawn because the University had changed its mandate, but he was instructed not to mention or involve the Province directly.

October 17, 2016The Public Services Cabinet Committee meets with the Council of Presidents of Universities in Manitoba and U of M President, Dr. David Barnard.

*Somebody made a Power Point presentation. No idea what it was.
October 20, 2016Dr. Barnard meets with government officials.

(I’m guessing he was pleading with them not to do this.)
October 24, 2016Juliano sends an email to Irving and Stevenson, saying that if the Government wanted the University to withdraw its offer, the Government would have to stand up and say so, in writing.

Juliano also mentioned that the University was worried that going back on their offer would amount to an unfair labour practice, as well as severely damaging its relationship with UMFA and other unions. This was not the first time the University had raised this concern.
October 25, 2016Irving responds to Juliano’s email. With respect to the upcoming mediation, he says:
1. The Government doesn’t believe it would be an unfair labour practice;
2. The Government is only approving a mandate of a one-year extension;
3. Any proposal on total compensation levels would have to be approved by the Government.
Later on October 25, 2016Juliano and other University representatives, bring their lawyer, Grant Mitchell, to meet with Irving and Stevenson.

I’m starting to really dislike these people.

So What’s Going On?

From what I can tell, the University was freaking out. If they are going to have to withdraw their 7% offer, it’s probably an unfair labour practice, and it’s going to ruin their relationship with UMFA. The University doesn’t want to do it at all, but if the Government is going to make them, then, would the Government please speak up and take responsibility.

Paragraph 101 of the Agreed Statement of Facts says:

“The University wanted to blame the Government.”

Hmmm. Wonder whether that wording was Heather’s idea. But why wouldn’t the University want to “blame the Government”? It was the Government’s fault.

Juliano Speaks

While I’m all in on UMFA’s position that this was inappropriate interference, and that the University should have defended its independence, Greg Juliano’s testimony at the Labour Relations Board Hearing reveals why the University was so worried about trying to resist.

“It was made quite clear to me that it was a directive, an order, not optional,” Juliano said. “If we did something other than what the Government had mandated, we were in danger of having something happen to the university, which would be really quite damaging.”

Although there was no specific threat, Juliano was concerned that the Province might reduce U of M’s operating grant if it didn’t follow orders. Since the Government also has the power to set tuition controls, approve monies for capital projects, as well as to determine who sits on the University’s Board of Governors, the University’s independence would appear to be inherently vulnerable to government suasion, should the Government choose to use it.

Juliano said the Government was angered by university opposition to their goals, and it was the Government who put the University of the position of going back on their 7% offer, while not being able to tell UMFA why they were doing it. The Government wanted it to happen, but they wanted the University to keep the Government’s role a secret.

“I clearly recognized that going sort of backwards in bargaining would potentially expose the university to a bad-faith bargaining claim. I suggested to them that we knew we had been ordered to do this but we needed the evidence that we had been ordered to do this,” he said.

Juliano described breaking the news to the UMFA at the mediation as like a bomb going off.

“I’ve been practicing law for 20 years … and had to break all sorts of bad news but this one took the cake. This was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do in a negotiation,” he said.

At some point, and I’m not exactly sure where and when, Juliano is supposed to have said “the Government wanted a strike.” Sigh. Why would they want that? We don’t know of course. If I had to guess, I’d say that a strike might be a good way to spin a picture of the Government needing to rein in the greedy unions.

Before we leave Greg Juliano, let us thank him for being so open about how hard and upsetting this all was for the University. So where is he now? He left the University of Manitoba in November of 2018. He is now Associate Vice-President Employee Services at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) in Calgary.

the next round – 2017

All that was bad enough, but because the 2016 Collective Agreement was only for one year, they all had to go through collective bargaining again in 2017. As you might imagine, it doesn’t go well.

By this point, the PSSA has been passed, but of course not proclaimed. So what does this mean for people negotiating in the meantime?

Well, there’s a problem. Even though the PSSA is not yet in force, it contains some retroactivity provisions. If anyone agrees to or gets awarded anything that would be higher, better, or not in accordance with the PSSA during this passed-but-not-proclaimed limbo, it will all be automatically erased once the PSSA becomes officially in effect. And not only that, any monies received by employees in the interim will be immediately transformed into a debt owed by the employee to their employer.

This means that the PSSA is essentially operating on anyone bargaining during the limbo period even though it is not legally operative. And that is certainly how the University now interprets the situation. They say they cannot consider anything that might be over and above was is set out in the PSSA even though it isn’t force yet. The University is not even certain that UMFA will get credit for the 2016 0% freeze to count as the first year of the PSSA 0%, 0%, 0.75%, 1% sustainability pattern.

What’s particularly galling is that the University had planned to make increases in salaries a priority. They had the money, but it was now being used for other purposes. UMFA reps encourage the University to speak out – you’re an independent institution, and this is governmental interference. Dr. Barnard publishes an open letter that reiterates that the University wanted to deal with salaries, and they did what they could. The University was not prepared to talk publicly about the details, but there is no indication that the Government is going to let up.

UMFA tries to get creative – let’s put the retroactivity debts into an account that won’t be released until the legal status and constitutionality of the PSSA is determined. Nope.

Ok, how about a wage reopener – something that says that if the PSSA is held to be unconstitutional the collective agreement will be reopened to discuss the wages issue. One of the University Vice-Presidents even pleads with the Government to allow the University to agree to this, pointing out how demoralizing and damaging the strike was to the University community, and that the University was having trouble recruiting new faculty members as well as having lost a number of promising young academics to competitors.

Apparently the response by someone on behalf of the Government to these entreaties was no, because it was “too generous to labour.”

“This is what we are up against,” says Dr. Mark Hudson. The University is supposed to be independent, but it is going along with whatever the Government says. The PSSA isn’t in force yet, but we are being forced to comply with it anyway, and it is hampering every aspect of the bargaining process.

UMFA wonders – who are we even bargaining with? The University is the one at the table but the Government is dictating how the University proceeds.

findings of the labour relations board

UMFA took the University of Manitoba to the Labour Relations Board, claiming that all of this was an unfair labour practice. And yes indeed, UMFA wins. The University is forced to make a public written apology and pay $2,000 to each of the UMFA members as well as UMFA itself.

But this doesn’t happen until January of 2018, far too late to correct any of the damage that was done to the collective bargaining agreements. It does, however, force the University to give evidence about why they did what they did.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Well, that sad story has come to an end. Makes you wonder what the government was up to. So, you want the PSSA pattern, but you don’t want anyone to know that it is you who wants it? I don’t get it.

Time to see whether Heather Leonoff can do some damage control on cross-examination.

cross-examination – by heather leonoff

Leonoff starts by pointing out that the University has had negotiation mandates before. Dr. Hudson agrees, but says that those mandates are usually guidelines with some flexibility built in, otherwise what’s the point of negotiating? Heather moves on.

As we have seen and will continue to see, one of the Government’s themes is – well, you could still bargain couldn’t you, and over important things even?

Leonoff:   Workload was a major issue, isn’t that true? 

                  Yes.

Leonoff:   And workload, the evaluation metrics, and the tenure process, these were important issues, right?

                  Dr. Hudson says yes. I say – define importance, as in important as compared to what? As compared to whether there are enough muffins in the faculty lounge, yes. As compared to competitve faculty salaries, not even close.

Leonoff:   And during the mediation, there was lots of discussions on these other issues, maybe made some progress?

                  Hmm, yeah, sort of.

Leonoff:   And UMFA made some proposals on these other issues, didn’t they?

                  Yeah, says. Dr, Hudson, we had to because we were stymied on what we wanted to deal with – wages. Point to Dr. Hudson. It’s a direct hit.

Leonoff:  So, during conciliation, it was the same thing? You were making proposals on non-monetary issues, you were updating members about these ‘important’ issues, and what you got in the end was good enough to take back to your members?

                  The way these questions are being asked, it is coming across as though she is talking to a five-year old child – now, now, little Marky, it wasn’t that bad was it?

                  And maybe she shouldn’t have asked them at all, because Dr. Mark Hudson then clobbers her with it was the best we could do in the circumstances.” It’s a stark reminder of how bad those circumstances were, and thus how pitiful those “gains” really were in comparison to what they wanted, and almost had.

There’s more, and it’s more of the same. Leonoff keeps trying to highlight the positives – look at this good or that important thing.

Dr. Hudson keeps throwing his in the circumstances shade, so much so that even Heather starts using it. What else would you expect from a university professor? All answers are guaranteed to be explicitly and precisely qualified and characterized as the context demands then to be.In the circumstances,” and pitiful indeed.

It finally ends. Dr. Mark Hudson is released, and slowly steps down from the witness box. I want to hug him.

The Trial Begins

Setting the scene in Courtroom #210 as the trial of MFL v. Manitoba begins. We get some background and meet the players.

Opening Statements

The proceedings begin with opening statements. Here, the lawyers for each side give us an outline of the course they are going to take (and why it is going to take 13 days to get there).

The Testimony of Kevin Rebeck

The President of the Manitoba Federation of Labour testifies about consultations between the government and some Labour leaders prior to the PSSA being passed. They weren’t very fruitful, and there seems to have been some question as to whether the government was being truthful.

Passed but Not Proclaimed?

Why is the government waiting to proclaim the PSSA? I thought there was a financial emergency, and dire warnings of our precarious fiscal position. But it has been 2 1/2 years. Don’t they need it yet?

The Testimony of Elizabeth Carlyle

Elizabeth Carlyle gets cross-examined about what happened in a negotiation between CUPE and the Winnipeg School Division. It wasn’t a lot, and it doesn’t sound as though it was very good.

The Testimony of Dr. Mark Hudson

Remember when the faculty at the University of Manitoba when on strike in November of 2016? Dr. Mark Hudson is here to tell us why it happened. And he fills us in on what was happening between the University and the Province behind the scenes.

The Testimony of Tom Paci

Tom Paci appears on behalf of the Manitoba Teachers Society. His story? A quest for justice for Manitoba’s 15,000 teachers and an appeal to the gods of justice – how can we be bound by the PSSA when it is not law?

Indirect Taxing & Discriminatory Taxation

If a tax by any other name would be as taxing, could wage freezes be indirect taxation? And if members of public sector unions are paying more in taxes to support public services, would this qualify as discriminatory taxation?

The Testimony of Michelle Gawronsky

The leader of the Manitoba Government and General Employees Union recounts her experiences since the advent of the PSSA. Everything she says about her automatic approach to understanding concerns and finding ways to solve problems makes me think ” leader, leader, this is a great leader.”

The Super Six Speak

Six experienced union negotiators come to tell us about what has been happening in their collective bargaining worlds. We learn more about what the PSSA means for public sector unions and their collective agreements.

Labour’s Collective Bargaining Expert

Dr. Robert Hebdon testifies about the impact of the PSSA on collective bargaining in Manitoba’s public sector. It isn’t good.

The Testimony of Sheila Gordon

We end the union tales of collective bargaining under the PSSA in passed-but-not-proclaimed limbo with MGEU’s GEMA. Sheila Gordon, MGEU’s senior negotiator was there. And she is here to tell us how those negotiations did not go anywhere.

Labour’s Read-ins and One Last Reveal

You never know what read-ins from discovery might reveal.

The Testimony of Richard Groen

Richard Groen, an Assistant Deputy Minister from the Ministry of Finance, testifies about the Province’s budgets and such.

I was expecting him to demonstrate what all the financial fuss in 2017 was about, you know, why our financial ship was sinking so much that we needed all hands on deck. But …

A No-Compete Treat for the Labour Market?

I don’t understand why the government doesn’t think it should have to compete in its own labour market. It does everywhere else.

The Testimony of Garry Steski

Is it wrong to admit that before this I didn’t really know what a bond market was? Well, I do now, and we learn a little about how Manitoba’s bonds were affected by the fiscal challenges in 2016. Or not.

Bean Counters, Businessmen & Business of Government

If businessmen go into government to bring the principles of good business to government, then shouldn’t they act like good businessmen when they get there?

The Government’s Collective Bargaining Expert

It is best to talk about what happened here as little as possible. So we’ll talk a bit about the importance of turkey instead.

The Testimony of Aurel Tess

How a short day of seemingly tedious technical testimony on Manitoba’s Summary Financial Statements turned into a most unpleasant surprise.

Politicizing the Provincial Comptroller

Ok, Manitoba. Politicizing the Office of the Provincial Comptroller?

That takes the poop-cake.

The Government’s Economics Expert

The government’s economics expert, Dr. Livio Di Matteo, has a motto he lives by: Agimus Meliora – Let us do better.

It makes me wonder, Manitoba, can’t we do better than the PSSA?

Labour’s Economics Expert

Dr. Eugene “the Earnest” Beaulieu testifies that the PSSA is not only not necessary, it is a harsh measure that puts an unfair burden on public employees.

Bye Bye, Dumbo

Let’s take one last look at the Elephant in the Room, and then say goodbye.

The Mandamus Application

A day of argument about whether a statute that says “the Minister SHALL FORTHWITH” means that the Minister can decide not to do something and make up his own reasons for why he shouldn’t.

Decision on the Mandamus Application

Justice Keyser, the judge on the Mandamus Application, has spoken. Here’s a hint – MGEU wins.

Bill 9: We’re Gaming Again …

Before we begin all the good stuff, Garth Smorang has some objections to yet another litigation game the Government of Manitoba is playing.

Labour’s Final Argument

Labour’s last stand. Shannon-the-Hammer and Smorang-the-Smasher pull it all together and wrap it all up.

There is an awful lot of it, so Labour’s final arguments have been separated into four separate posts, which start here …

Butt-First Buffoonery

How did the Government of Manitoba get to such an embarrassing PSSA place? They backed into it.

The Government’s Final Argument

Forget the Elephant-in-the-Room.The Government of Manitoba has got many other ways to try to move the goalposts, as they try to change the game.

Kind of seems like they know they are losing.

Labour Replies

The Finale of the Finale. Labour replies.

(This means we are finally done. At least with the evidence and arguments.)

The Onion of Outrage

Why am I here? Why spend so much watching lawyers and judges and reading endless cases? It’s a pretty simple answer.

I was mad.

The Decision is In!!!

The Honourable Justice Joan McKelvey has ruled. Labour won. The PSSA is unconstitutional.

This is what she decided and why.

What Have We Learned?

There’s lots to discover from considering Justice McKelvey’s decision, and not just for labour lawyers. Let’s take a look at what we have learned.