Web Notifications

SaltWire.com would like to send you notifications for breaking news alerts.

Activate notifications?

Former vice-principal seeking roughly 23 years of income from P.E.I. Teachers Federation

P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice Nancy Key
P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice Nancy Key

STORY CONTINUES BELOW THESE SALTWIRE VIDEOS

The Mama Mia Burger | SaltWire

Watch on YouTube: "The Mama Mia Burger | SaltWire"

A former vice-principal is seeking hefty damages from the P.E.I. Teachers Federation claiming a failure on the union’s part to provide fair representation.

Andrew Hughes is looking for a host of special damages, including future income he believes he would have earned as a principal from September 2014 until his anticipated retirement at age 65 – a period of roughly 23 years.

He is also seeking pension contributions, future loss of health and dental coverage and benefits, and costs for replacement private health care and dental coverage.

Hughes, according to the statement of claim, was the successful candidate in June 2013 of open competition for a vice-principal position at Georgetown Elementary School.

According to the statement of fact, on April 7, 2014, Hughes was advised by the then principal of Georgetown Elementary that he was ineligible for administrative transfers as he was considered by the school board to be under a fixed-term contract “despite the fact that he held an administrative position and despite the clear and unambiguous wording of both the School Act and Section 32:02 of the collective agreement.’’

Hughes claims a breach of the duty of fair representation by the PEITF has resulted in an inability to continue working in his chosen profession and left him to find work in a field without the same financial security or stability and without any pension or other benefits.

“This has caused the plaintiff to incur significant financial hardship and he has exhausted his savings,’’ the claim states.

A lawyer for the PEITF was in Supreme Court Thursday seeking a summary judgment to dispose of the case without a trial.

She argued Hughes had a fixed end to his contract of June 7, 2014 and was not entitled to a transfer.

The lawyer representing Hughes called the case a complicated matter but argued his client should have been allowed to participate in the transfer process.

Supreme Court Justice Nancy Key will rule on how the case will proceed.

Share story:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT