In an announcement made last weekend, the MUT disclosed that it had filed a libel lawsuit in response to an allegedly defamatory article published by the UPE which was also the focal point of a press conference by the same union.

Moreover, UPE said that it will “continue to ask additional questions to the MUT”.

“Can the leadership of the MUT present the proposals of the government and the expectations of the MUT?”

“Can MUT give assurances to educators that no additional reforms will be implemented after the sectoral agreement?”

“Has the MUT President shared the draft sectoral agreement with council members, or is this a repeat of the 2017 sectoral agreement?”

The MUT had issued several directives and declared a strike for teachers after negotiations with the government failed to produce an agreement on the sectoral or collective terms.

The UPE reportedly stated that rumours suggest that MUT had accepted the financial proposals offered by the state and that the strike was merely a demonstration of power.

Meanwhile, the union contended that the MUT had been negotiating solely on matters like working conditions and allowances, neglecting to address the fundamental issue of teachers’ basic salaries. According to the UPE, this basic salary was slated to remain unchanged until the conclusion of 2024.

Yet, the MUT maintained that the UPE was not part of the ongoing negotiations regarding the sectoral or collective agreement. It argued that this exclusion did not grant the UPE the right to make defamatory remarks concerning the MUT and its leadership.

The MUT strongly stated that the UPE had no authority to issue defamatory statements regarding the ongoing negotiation process between the MUT and the government. 

What do you make of the UPE’s response?