The Supreme Court has struck out a claim that the Bermuda Union of Teachers improperly suspended a member for speaking to The Royal Gazette.

The Reverend Leonard Santucci alleged that he was denied due process and, as a result of his suspension, unfairly stripped of his chance to run for the post of vice-president in 2021, despite being nominated.

However, the BUT said that Dr Santucci had been suspended in accordance with the union’s constitution and common law principles.

In a written judgment released this month, Chief Justice Larry Mussenden dismissed Dr Santucci’s claims, finding that he had breached the confidence of the union.

“I find that there was no impropriety or wrongdoing in the union’s conduct such that it warranted Dr Santucci to commit acts of breach of confidence in light of the need for confidence in union business,” Mr Justice Mussenden wrote.

“Thus, it follows that I am not satisfied that the union’s conduct amounted to disregarding Dr Santucci’s rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.”

In the wake of the ruling, Dr Santucci told the Gazette he was considering an appeal, stating: “I don’t think it is over yet.”

The dispute stemmed from a decision to remove Mike Charles, a former general secretary at the union, in June 2021.

Dr Santucci, the pastor at Vernon Temple African Methodist Episcopal Church in Southampton and the BUT representative for The Berkeley Institute at the time, initially brought his concerns to Nishanthi Bailey, who was the BUT president at the time.

He later gathered signatures from members to host a special general meeting dealing with the matter and suggested that it could be held at The Berkeley Institute school field, but was told the union’s constitution required such meetings to be held in private.

Dr Santucci said he was subsequently contacted by the The Royal Gazette about the issue and responded to questions.

He said he had felt it necessary to give answers because educators had a responsibility to educate, and the union’s communication network did not share dissenting views.

Dr Santucci was then suspended and Mr Charles’s successor, Anthony Wolffe, told him in a letter that he could no longer run for union vice-president in an upcoming election.

Mr Wolffe wrote that Dr Santucci had broken confidentiality by speaking to the media, bringing the union into public disrepute.

Dr Santucci argued in the Supreme Court that he was unlawfully and unfairly suspended and that the union had maliciously rescinded his eligibility to run for office.

He further complained that the actions of the union’s executive committee contravened his rights to freedom of speech.

The BUT denied the allegations, stating in court that the suspensions were properly carried out in accordance with its constitution.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Mussenden ruled in favour of the BUT, finding that Dr Santucci’s actions amounted to a breach of confidence.

“In my view, the union held general principles of privacy and confidentiality, breaches of which need not be set down in a disciplinary code, but for which members could be held accountable in disciplinary proceedings,” he said.

The judge added that he did not find any evidence of bias by the executive committee, or that the suspension had breached Dr Santucci’s rights.

“In my view, having made the findings on the suspensions above, I am satisfied on the evidence of Ms Bailey that Dr Santucci was ineligible to be a candidate for election to office while under suspension,” Mr Justice Mussenden said.

As a result, the judge also found that there was no basis upon which to deem the subsequent election null and void, as requested by Dr Santucci.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers