MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20307, 5 August 1931, Page 9

MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.

NO POWER OF j DISMISSAL. ACT HAS UNEXPECTED | INTERPRETATION. AUCKLAND TEST CASE. Tho effect of a decision given in the Supreme Court at Auckland yesterday by Mr Justice Hcrdman is that the New Zealand Government, through the faulty drafting of Section 34 of tho Finance Act (No. 2), has defeated what was' its avowed purpose—tlie dismissal of married women teachers not dependent upon the profession for their livelihood. No Education Board in New Zealand may now dismiss a married woman because she and her family have other adequate means of support; according to the Court's interpretation of tho Act, it may only refuse an appointment to such a woman. In the Canterbury Board's district, where 74- married women teachers have been asked to show cause why they should not be dismissed, the whole enquiry is now expected to be dropped.. According to the judgment of Mr Justice Herdman, it was plain beyond all question that the Act defined a Board's power only in relation to tho appointment of teachers and not to their dismissal. That the. .Government intended the legislation to. secure dismissals and not merely to .prevent appointments of married women teachers is clearly shown in the remarks of the Minister for Education (the Hon. H. Atmore), which were published in The Press on June 18th. The Minister's Statement. "I think the whole matter is pretty well safeguarded by the clause in the Finance Act which holds that the dismissal of a teacher must be- made with the consent and approval of tho senior inspector, who is an officer of the Department," said Mr Atmore, discussing the question whether the appeal of a married woman teacher against her dismissal by an Education Board might not be sustained by the Court of Appeal. "I find that almost all the Boards are in agreement," he added, "that in c&ses where the dismissal could be made without imposing any hardship on the teacher and an appointment conld be made not detrimental to the children, then the married women teachers should be replaced."

Departmental Warning. In spite of this statement by the Minister, and in spite of the intention of the Government to dismiss the teachers as clearly understood by members -of Parliament and by Boards, the Education Department sent a note of warning to all Boards that if they decided to give notice of dismissal to married women teachers "the provision of Part XI. of the Education Act relative to the appeal of teachers against dismissal will apply." Part XI. of this Act defines the constitution of the teachers' Court of Appeal, and states that the dismissal of a teacher would not be considered wrongful if the Board was able to satisfy the Court "that the determination of the engagement wds reasonable, having regard to any of the following fixed circumstances:— (1) The efficient and economical administration of the Board's affairs. (2) The fitness of the teacher. * (3) His conduct. (4) Any other special circumstances irrespective of the Board's mere legal right .to determine the engagement by notice." Boards Take Action. It was considered that the provision of the Second Finance Act might be included in the fourth section as "a special circumstance,'' although, in any case, given a married teacher who was efficient and well-conducted some thought that the Board would have difficulty in proving the justice of its decision. When the Finance Act was passed, Boards throughout New Zealand decided to take action. At a meeting on May 22nd tbe Canterbury Board decided that all married "women teachers should bo called upon to show, reason, within two months, why their engagements should not be terminated. Of the 74 affected,, tho majority had good cause to hold their positions: 15' were widows; others were separated from their husbands; others, again, were the sole supports of their children, the husbands being unemployed, , disabled from war injuries, or by sickness, or pensioners with a bare living. It was soon apparent that the Board must consider each case strictly on its merits. Future Policy. Similar action was taken by the other Boards in the North and South Islands. At its meeting on July 9th the Auckland Board decided to give notico to 54 married women in order to relieve unemployment among single women teachers in the district. The final dismissal in Auckland and in other centres was held up pending the decision of Mr Justice Herdman in a test case which was taken to the Supreme Court. Following this decision, the Canterbury Board will be unable to find any employment for the 30 unmarried women whose application*! are at present filed. The future policy of the Board will be the consideration of each case on its merits. If a married woman happens to be the highest-graded applicant for a position,- and she can show good reason for wanting work, tho Board will still give her consideration. Other things being equal, however, the single woman is always likely to have preference.

JUDGMENT OP THE COURT. (rKESS 4SSOCIXTIOH XXLEOaAM.) AUCKLAND, August 4. Judgment in favour of a married woman teacher and against the Auckland Education Board was given by his Honour Mr Justice Herdman today in an important test case. The Board had asked the Court to decide whether a certain sectiou of the Finance Act, 1931, empowered the Board to dismiss any teacher who was a married woman. Defendant contended that the Act empowered the Board only to refuse employment in future to married women. The Judge said that to his mind it was plain beyond all question that the Legislature's object was to define the Board's power in relation to the appointment of teachers. The subject matter of Sub-Section 0 was the making of a contract of employment, not its termination. If the power to refuse to employ a femalo married teacher

impliedly existed before, it bad now been expressly given. He was satisfied that the new proviso concerned appointments alonoand had nothing to do with dismissals. The proviso was not a separate enactment and must be considered in relation to the whole of the Education Acts. The construction he placed upon it involved no absurdity nil<l the purpose of it was unmistakable. i