WOMEN TEACHERS.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18722, 19 June 1926, Page 10

WOMEN TEACHERS.

AVENUES OF PROMOTION.

ACTION AGAINST BOARDS FAILS

(PBESS ASSOCIATION TELEGEAK.) WELLINGTON, June 18. L'uring the hearing of an application for a declaratory judgment bo- , fore Mr Justice. McGregor, determin- ■ ing whether Education Boards have ' the right to exclude unmarried teach- '■ ers and ! women-from the'terms of their 'advertisements,' in which' the New Zealand Educational-Institute is Dlaintitt;,■ and - the -. Wellington , and - Otago Education ; Boards-are defendants, his Honour- said' the ■ Court: ni ust"have an infringement ■of /nominal •. rights before it -could'give' a. declaratory judgment. He was being asked ito interpret the statute in the abstract; without any specific instances of its'operation. Mr Evans, who appeared-'for the Institute, said that a teacher X might bring a case against a board, and might fail because the teacher could not know under which clause,of the Act the board had acted.-The,major-ity of male teachers were quite;willing for these proceedings to be-taken, as in any case they could still ■ compete with female teachers on most;'favourable terms under the principles under which the selections were made. His Honour: I am still looking tor the individual person aggrieved. _ Mr Evans said that they-Institute represented 85 per cent. undW percent, of the teachers in -New- Zealand. A body so large must have an interest in a question affecting teachers. His Honour: The Institute does not , consist of teachers, but societies of teachers. ,•',,-. . Mr Evans pointed out that the societies • were as'stated by the statute composed of teachers. . His Honour: Yes, but there is nothing to require that the executive should consist of teachers. -,» t rvMrsEvans: It always has, though it stipulated. It can bo placed on? affidavit. -■ All • the ' affairs - of the Institute are-conducted by,'teachers. . • -His - ; . Honou r ::. ; When was . the Institute' 'formed? ■. ■'■ Mr Evans: It goes back to VSai but it had no statutory recognition until 1895. It was a body established for the protection of teachers'..interests, and represented through: local: societies, a large proportion of the teaching profession. The present, attack on the Boards was against the Boards' advertising, and limiting applications to male teachers. The Boardsvirtually said: "For every school above a certain grade wo will have a man." The case was different from the recent Dairy Control Board case, which required the elucidation 'of clauses running the length of the statute, whereas in this case the questions were narrowed down to five in-ter-related questions. , _ His Honour: .Yours is a shorter catechism. Department's Interest. The Solicitor-General said .it was not the desire of the Department to prevent any properly constituted proceedings, but whether the present proceedinjjs came within the scope, or the Institute was another matter, which it was for the Court to decide. It had not been 'shown that the majority of male teachers desired the proceedings. J. he. question was whether the Institute could bo accepted as the spokesman of those of its members who did not do-. - sira the proceedings. One body could hot speak'with, a single:voice for two irreconcilable sections, and there were - -perhaps- bodies- more able to - bring -ac- , tiori.-such as the Women Teachers' Association. " It would bo estremely dangerous for the Court to act upon hypothetical instances. If no woman teacher considered herself -sufficiently necrieved to take action in the Court, itoould not be held that there was a grievance on tho statement of the InIn the course of his judgment his Honour dismissed the originating summons without costs, on ■ the grounds, briefly, that the form of the proceedings was not suitable in the case of a bodv such as the Institute, and that a concrete.case of injury of a teacher was not stated, but a general interpretation of statute was been sought on a hypothetical basis.