Article content continued

Then there’s the severance pay. The statement of claim alleges Hudson’s contract entitled her to two years’ pay, $136,284.72 in all, if she were dismissed by her employer. However, if she left of her own accord, she would receive nothing.

Hudson is also alleged to have “deliberately destroyed information contrary to the terms of (her employment) contract” by wiping her computer’s hard drive before her departure

The statement of claim includes the termination notice dated April 16, roughly two weeks after the new slate of candidates had been elected and two weeks before the end of their tenure. Bollo-Kamara and Wathey, along with Hudson, are alleged to have signed a termination agreement ending her employment on April 30, one day before the new UTSU executive took up their positions. The termination package entitled her to $247,726.40, including the two years’ salary, the overtime pay, vacation pay and an additional six weeks of pay. According to UTSU’s claim, the trio included a confidentiality clause in the agreement, prohibiting them from discussing the reasons for Hudson’s dismissal. The plaintiff notes there had been “no complaints about the performance of Hudson and no plausible explanation for terminating her contract without cause.” Hudson is also alleged to have “deliberately destroyed information contrary to the terms of (her employment) contract” by wiping her computer’s hard drive before her departure.

[np_storybar title=”Read & Debate” link=””] Find Full Comment on Facebook

[/np_storybar]

These are, it should be stressed, only claims at this point; they have yet to be proven in court. (Hudson, Bollo-Kamara and Wathey were contacted for comment, but did not respond by press time. They have 20 days from when they received the statement of claim to file their defences to the union’s allegations.) We do not know for certain that Hudson did not work a 60-hour week, that she was not entitled to overtime pay or that she did not deserve to be dismissed — one day before a new executive were to take over the council. This whole thing could be nothing more than a highly coincidental but wholly justified payout of one-tenth of the student union’s budget shrouded by a confidentiality clause.

But the students who paid for it, and for whom the CFS enduringly claims to be working — especially those drowning in thousands of dollars of debt — might have other ways of describing it.

National Post

Robyn Urback • rurback@nationalpost.com | robynurback