But August 29, 1994, the Arbitration Panel did, indeed, find in my favor. They stated that my removal from teaching religion was, in fact, a disciplinary measure that contravened Article 10.01 of the Collective Agreement. The Panel's decision was based on the following rationale. First of all, the Board's action was disciplinary because it directly affected my employment and job opportunities, and removed me from my life's work. It had nothing to do with programming or staffing needs at the school; in fact, a non-Catholic teacher was moved from another department to teach my religion courses. And in the School Board's view, my actions would be correctable if I stopped identifying myself as a Board employee in the media.

Secondly, the School Board's action constituted a reprimand and public censure. Because I was one of the most knowledgeable, competent, and well known religion teachers, taking away my courses was a serious rebuke. School Board officials wanted me to have nothing more to do with religion until I had gone through some sort of cleansing period. They knew I would be upset by their action, and the Director of Education was responding to pressure from the "heat" he was receiving.

Finally, the action amounted to a demotion. I was a devoted teacher of religion, involved in a number of religious projects and organizations in the Catholic world, of which the School Board was aware and from which I would have been restricted. For me to be prohibited from teaching religion involved a loss of status and constituted a devastating blow.

That the School Board's action was disciplinary, a reprimand, and a demotion contravened the Collective Agreement for the following reasons. The School Board had no clear or consistent rule which I had transgressed; they failed to provide me with the reason for their action in writing; they failed to inform me in advance that they intended to demote me; and they failed to give me any due process.

The arbitrators rejected the "denominational rights" argument on the grounds that the School Board was never concerned about my classroom teaching or practice; that they did not take issue with the substance of my critique of the Church in the media (as the Director had stated that my views were within the mainstream of a healthy debate taking place within the Catholic Church); and that my writings did not depart from denominational standards, neither had I offended against the religious or denominational aspects of the school.

"As a result of [Metro Separate School Board']s actions," the arbitrators concluded, "the teaching of religion to students became inferior and ... the reasons for the action against Manning were not denominational but political." Not only have I been reinstated as a teacher of religion in the Catholic School Board, I have been vindicated in my right to criticize papal teachings on issues related to women - a right I will definitely continue to uphold.

Joanna Manning is a secondary school teacher with the Catholic School Board of Metropolitan Toronto. A longer article examining the repercussions of her experience will appear in a later issue.