TRAC moves to suspend former president

TRAC offices are located on the second floor of their building at 2130 Bishop street. Photo by

Teaching and Research Assistants of Concordia University (TRAC) has voted to recommend the suspension of Robert Sonin, a current TRAC member and the former president of the labour union local from the executive committee for the next five years. The recommendation follows a complaint Sonin filed regarding unaccounted funds, among other accusations.

Since TRAC is a Directly Chartered Local of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), a national union representing public service workers, the organization is unable to suspend Sonin without approval from PSAC. However, they made the decision in early November to send their recommendation to the union’s national board, where the final decision regarding the suspension will be made. The decision date has yet to be determined.

The recommended suspension comes after a long chain of complaints about the actions of TRAC’s executive committee. In 2014, an investigation was conducted in response to complaints filed against TRAC president Nader Nodoushan by Sonin and two then-executive members, Isabelle Johnston and Daria Saryan. The investigation was conducted by two presidents of other PSAC locals at the time—Amber Gross from the Association of McGill University Support Employees (AMUSE) and Kevin Whitaker from the McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association (MUNACA).

The investigation concluded that “it was clear that Mr. Nodoushan did knowingly and willingly violate Article 12.4 of the TRAC bylaws,” a rule prohibiting him from making purchasing decisions of over $3,000 without committee approval. The investigation also determined some of his behaviour towards Sonin, Saryan and Johnston “constituted intimidation and harassment,” however, it was not found that Nodoushan had ill intentions or “realized how problematic his actions were becoming.”

The investigation also looked into counter-complaints made by Nodoushan. Sonin was investigated in the report for accusations of harassment, submitting unjustified timesheets, fabricating rumours about executive members, not holding the legal credentials to be an executive member and being delayed in paying back a $450 loan from TRAC during a period where there was a delay in liberation payments—payments made to TRAC executives who need to miss work in order to fulfill their duties as an executive member from Concordia University.

The investigation dismissed every complaint against Sonin except the delay in paying back the loan. It reported that, while the delay seemed reasonable as “Mr. Nodoushan was occasionally withholding Mr. Sonin’s pay,” the report recommended that Sonin should have settled what was owed immediately.

The report’s recommended corrective action included the removal of Nodoushan from the position of president with a one-year suspension from any elected TRAC position, and the removal of Sonin, Saryan and Johnston from their executive positions with no suspension. However, the TRAC executive committee voted to dismiss these recommendations.

The conflict between executive members continued in March of 2016 when, as The Concordian previously reported, Sonin filed a Tribunal administratif du travail complaint. He had noticed that, in the 2014-2015 fiscal year, there was an unexplained discrepancy between what TRAC reported as the difference between their income and expenses and the actual difference, leaving $16,348.93 unaccounted for. The basis of the complaint was that TRAC was allegedly denying Sonin access to financial records and Sonin alleged that TRAC had violated the duty of fair representation under section 47.2 of the Code du travail. Nodoushan denied this in an interview with The Concordian on Nov. 25, claiming Sonin was given access to the records he requested.

According to Sonin, the recent recommendation for his suspension is based on a number of social media posts he made—including sharing the aforementioned The Concordian article—which TRAC has allegedly characterized said posts as “spreading false information.” Sonin called this characterization “complete nonsense,” as the issues he brought up were already available to the public.

“Generally, [these posts] are questions,” said Sonin. “You have this $1,000 cheque and there are no receipts—what happened? If they show the receipts, then I’ll shut up.”

The 2014 investigation report was read in its entirety at the meeting where the executive committee voted on whether to dismiss the recommendations, said Sonin. However, at the 2016 meeting on whether to dismiss the recommendations to suspend Sonin, the report was not read, according to Sonin.

Sonin said he felt the executive committee voted to approve the recommendation of his suspension without full information, as the committee was unable to read the 2016 investigative report surrounding his actions.

“My sense, usually, is if you ask people for information and they refuse to give it to you, it’s because there’s something in there that they don’t want you to see,” Sonin said, questioning whether the 2016 report was being withheld from voters so they would be unable to decide for themselves whether Sonin’s actions constituted spreading false information.

Although the date has yet to be determined, Sonin predicted the PSAC’s national board will release their decision regarding Sonin’s suspension in early 2017.

Nodoushan declined to comment on both the recommendation of Sonin’s suspension, as it is still an ongoing process and the 2014 report, claiming he was unable, as president, to comment on confidential investigations. However, he noted that every part of the process regarding Sonin’s recommended suspension has complied with regulation 19 of PSAC’s constitution, a regulation which outlines how to deal with membership discipline.

Nodoushan also shared the Tribunal administratif du travail’s decision on Sonin’s complaint regarding access to financial records. The Tribunal rejected his complaint, calling it “dilatory,” a word often used to describe motions that cause a delay.

Regardless, Sonin still claims there is validity to his complaint and the rejection was due to a technical error on his part.

“[Dilatory] is a legal term that can mean I did something the wrong way. It could mean it was frivolous, but it could mean I went to the wrong court,” Sonin said.

Nodoushan also added TRAC represents thousands of teaching assistants and research assistants at Concordia University and speaking out against the union as Sonin did could damage the reputation of TRAC and affect their ability to negotiate better pay and working conditions.

“What we say affects people. This is more important than one person—this is about the workers and students that TRAC represents,” Nodoushan said.

1 comment

  1. The union’s silence affects people. And because the union represents workers
    and students it is your duty to be accountable for the union expenses.

    Instead of starting witch-hunts against the rare member(s) that still have that sense of duty, admit your budgeting errors and learn to minimize them in the future.

    How much money did the union spend in pursuing a case against this man?
    I’m curious, was that omitted in the books too?

    I’m not impressed.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts