Three former lecturers of Stamford College Petaling Jaya today claimed they were given the sack because of their union activities.

The three — S Sathiavathy, Norbaizura Naim and Lee Gaik Hong — said they were charged with gross misconduct for staging a 'walk-out' over their new job functions during a meeting with senior management in May.

The women, who were sacked in July, are members of the National Union of Private Higher Education Institution Lecturers (Nupheil). The union, which they helped organise, was registered last November.

Speaking on behalf of her colleagues, Sathiavathy said during their respective domestic inquiries, they were cast in a "poor and dubious light" and references were made to their role in setting up a union for private college lecturers.

"We were accused of being poor role models for the students, involved in clandestine activities, likened to the notorious Gang of Four from China and running military operations," said the communications lecturer during a press conference held at the Metal and Electrical Industries Union office in Petaling Jaya.

"The comments were wholly irrelevant to the proceedings and specifically designed to cause maximum damage to our personal lives," she added.

The three have taught at the college between seven and 10 years and Sathiavathy was pregnant when she was terminated from her job.

The lecturers fell out of favour with Stamford when the college launched its electronic learning (e-learning) programme on the Internet to keep up with competitors and demanded that lecturers contribute online notes.

The affected lecturers, concerned about their intellectual property rights and remunerations for the extra workload, sought a meeting with their respective head of departments but were told to meet with the senior management instead.

Verbal tirade

Sathiavathy said when the lecturers raised their concerns at the meeting they were told that they would not be compensated and any notes produced would become college property.

She added that e-learning was new to many of the lecturers and contractually, they were employed to deliver notes, prepare and mark assignments and examination papers.

"But an hour and 15 minutes into the question-and-answer discussion, the director of operations came in and took control of the meeting. She revisited the issue again and went on to accuse the academic staff of being barriers to the e-learning project," said Sathiavathy.

"A verbal tirade followed and lecturers were told to go. Five lecturers at this point left," she added.

The five who "walked-out" were then charged with gross misconduct. They were issued show cause letters and suspended from duty with half-pay.

Their respective domestic inquiries found the five guilty as charged. However, two were reinstated after serving a seven-day suspension without pay.

"One of the dismissed had the same charge framed against her as one who was asked to report for duty. We cannot understand the contradiction but it appears to be another demonstration of bad faith," said Sathiavathy.

"In our respective appeal letters, we have asked for the charges to be dropped and for apologies to be issued. Nothing less than this will right the wrong," she stressed.

The three have also filed a complaint with the Industrial Relations Department. They said they were planning to seek redress from the Education Ministry and the National Accreditation Board.

Disciplinary procedure

Meanwhile, Stamford PJ corporate affairs executive Dr Chan Kok Eng said the college was considering "some action against the lecturers".

"So it would be unfair to comment on the issue. We expect them to go to the Industrial Relations Department," he said when contacted.

Stamford Group legal and administration director Andrew Choo said the case against the lecturers was not a case of victimisation but a disciplinary procedure.

"We followed the procedures thoroughly. They were given a chance to appeal," he said, adding that the proper forum for the lecturers to air their grouses would be the Industrial Relations Department.

On the issue of intellectual property rights and remuneration for extra work, Choo said the lecturers were not "forced" to do the added work.

"That's why there was a meeting to discuss the matter. It was a change in the method of teaching — like we used to use chalks for writing, now we are asked to use the Internet," he said.

He denied that the lecturers were told to leave the meeting. "One of them said 'go' and the others left," he said.