Labour board shows double standard when teachers assaulted by students

Article content

Like many supporters of veteran high school teacher James Murphy, I was hit with a sense of condescending betrayal when the Ontario Labour Relations Board refused to uphold Murphy’s claim that in November 2019, he was subjected to reprisals after filing a work refusal in the wake of a violent altercation with a student.

Article content

Of course, this right to a safe and violence-free workplace, and the absolute right to be free of reprisals, is pretty well standard in the “real world of business” where I work part-time now.  Not so in my former profession of teaching.

Article content

For those who haven’t followed coverage of this case in Canada and the U.S., Murphy is a 30-year veteran teacher in Brampton who initiated, and stood his ground, in a 2019 work refusal following a violent altercation with a student.  Though such action is an acceptable and standard procedure  (at least outside of teaching) if one feels unsafe, Murphy was subsequently prohibited from teaching at the school or communicating with staff.

He recently lost his complaint of employer reprisals before Ontario’s labour board. A cautionary tale, it would seem, to any teacher thinking about making a formal complaint or work refusal following an assault by students.  Whether or not the intent of the labour board, its refusal to support Murphy arguably indulges the apparent psycho-social right of violent students (some as old as 18 or 19)  to harass, demean, prey on, and assault teachers in Ontario’s schools.

Article content

Article content

But an even greater insult was some of the reasoning behind the board’s decision. It appears that  Murphy’s case was diminished because — despite his claim and all the evidence supporting it — Murphy apparently didn’t show signs of being emotionally distraught in the wake of the assault.

Recommended video

“I first wish to express agreement with the school board that in all probability, Mr Murphy did not feel personally endangered by workplace violence on Nov. 12 and 13 (2019) by the return to school of the student with whom he had tussled over the bicycle” states the board’s decision. “He did not likely fear that he might be subjected to violence from the student.”

Really? Not the assault!  Not the lack of support from principals and the union?

Article content

But instead, how Murphy appeared to look like at around the time of the incident!

Only in teaching can management-driven, non-expert and subjective impressions of a victimized employee’s apparent emotional presence of mind, override the same victim’s actual evidentiary claim that they are working in an unsafe environment.

It seems, in hindsight, Murphy shouldn’t have kept a level head when he reported the violence and submitted his work refusal in November 2019.  So much for acting like a real man in today’s schools!

Another seemingly negative and aggravating attribute assigned by the labour board was that Murphy apparently “has a very low tolerance for student misbehaviour or defiance of authority” and that “he considered it his core duty to maintain order and discipline.”

Article content

Is that a problem?

Portraying a teacher with a strong sense of order and discipline in a negative light shows how permissive official attitudes towards teaching have become.

I should disclose here that, while I do not personally know Murphy, I taught at the same school board (Dufferin Peel Catholic) for the last 20 of my 27 years in the classroom.  We were never at the same school, but let me say categorically that, as a teacher, I — like Murphy —  frequently  “bristled against what he perceived to be softness or forbearance by (his school’s) administration in the face of student unruliness.”  Mea Culpa !

But shouldn’t Murphy’s union local,  Dufferin-Peel Secondary Unit (part of OECTA), have wholeheartedly protected him and his right to safety?

Article content

Doesn’t look like it.  Seems the local union executive officers, called to his school in response to his work refusal, chose to walk away.  When called to the school, they informed the principal that “Mr. Murphy was not engaged in a work refusal,” according to the decision. The two women representing the union then left the school, according to the decision.

Certainly, news to Murphy since, feeling his personal safety issues were not properly addressed, he continued his work refusal.

It appears those holding top positions at Murphy’s union local want to come across as more agreeable and compliant to discipline-averse principals who don’t support teachers. I guess it is their conscience, not-to-mention their election to win or lose, the next time they have to run for office.

Article content