MUT's stand on PMP procedures

I refer to the letter by Charles Galea, entitled MUT allegations (August 15).

Mr Galea wrote: "I also understand that in the past the MUT used to verify facts before proceeding with publishing allegations. This time it seems that some of its officials have reacted rashly without doing their 'homework', unwittingly forgetting the dual role of the union - that is, that of a serious trade union and a responsible educational institution."

The MUT feels greatly aggrieved by this insinuation. Mr Galea seems to call into question the professionalism of the union and the integrity of its officials in dealing with the Performance Management Programme (PMP) issue which saw its culmination at the end of this scholastic year. In this regard, the MUT would like to clarify, for the umpteenth time, that it has done all in its might to prevent the resultant situation. Indeed, the MUT was initially against the PMP due to the way it was formulated and its intended implementation: the MUT had submitted concrete proposals on how the PMP could truly become a genuine appraisal tool based upon reciprocal professional feedback.

Regrettably not all of the union's suggestions were taken heed of with the attendant unfortunate results.

Furthermore, this year (yet for the umpteenth time!) the union contacted the Education Division to give clear instructions on how the PMP procedure ought to be carried out. The Education Division duly complied. Moreover, the issue was also clearly explained in the union's last letter circular (MUT Letter Circular 04/07).

The MUT has no quandary at all with importance of appraisal and the benefits that might accrue if it is carried out in a truly professional manner. Unfortunately, in a few schools the PMP procedures were not followed through correctly and in a limited number of instances the whole scenario was even tantamount to workplace harassment. It is within this context that the MUT is deeply preoccupied with the reasoning espoused by Mr Galea. Mr Galea, inter alia writes: "...I am not aware that teachers, being professionally trained, have to take home their performance appraisal to have it reviewed?" The MUT asks "why not?". The PMP procedure, in our view, ought to be the emanation of a collegial mentality. Further, the teacher - like any other professional worker - surely ought to have the benefit of consulting with other professionals in the field, to discuss any concern with the union or to seek legal advice. Are we suggesting that this appraisal procedure ought to be so "privileged" as to preclude the employee from seeking further professional advice and/or legal redress when these rights are universally recognised?

The MUT has made it amply clear that it will not tolerate situations that might be construed as workplace harassment. This is why the MUT has repeatedly called on the education authorities to institute an independent inquiry into the PMP procedures adopted in three schools. The MUT believes that it is only through an independent inquiry that educators can put their minds at rest that their professional dignity and basic rights are assured. At this stage the MUT has nothing more to comment on or state but to protest at the education authorities' refusal in this regard.

Mr Galea asks the MUT to "review its position before making insinuations and rush to the press". This is precisely what Mr Galea ought to have done in the first place. Had Mr Galea followed closely the press statements issued by the MUT - and perhaps even deigned to call at our offices and ask for any clarifications - he would certainly have understood the union's predicament and most likely would not have put pen to paper and cast doubts on the very organisation whose primary aim is the promotion of optimal conditions for all educators!