Woman’s right to expenses upheld

Press, 7 December 1978, Page 7

Woman’s right to expenses upheld

PA' Wellington The right of a married woman teacher to removal expenses on* transfer or promotion has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Court has dismissed an appeal by the Attor-ney-General, suing on behalf of the Education Department. as first appellant, and Leslie Walter Gandar, Minister of Education, as second appellant, against a Supreme Court ruling by Mr Justice Cooke in favour of Jeanne van Gorkum, a secondary school teacher, of New Plymouth.

The action was a test case brought by the PostPrimary Teachers’ Association. which alleged discrimination against women teachers by the department. Mrs. van Gorkum had been a senior mistress at Inglewood High School and was appointed on promotion to a senior positjon at Paraparaumu College. She was married and living in New, Plymouth with her husband, who was employed fulltime outside the teaching profession. Referring to the Education (Salaries and Staffing) Regulations; a joint

judgment by the President of the Court (Sir Clifford Richmond) and Mr Justice Richardson said, '‘lt does not follow that the Minister is not entitled to differentiate between married male teachers and married female teachers. “It would not be unreasonable for him to say that in today’s society many women transferring in their employment, even on promotion, do so at least primarily because of, and in the wake of. the husband’s career move. “In many cases the expenses of shifting the household may fairly be categorised as expenses of his move rather than of her removal to take up her new post. “When laying down general conditions governing the payment of removal expenses the Minister is not obliged to proceed on the premise that the appointment of a married woman teacher to another teaching position invariably causes her family to move. “Equally, he is not en-

titled to proceed on the contrary and demonstrably false premise that it is onlv where the husband is an'invalid and financially, dependent on his wife that it is arguable that the family moved because of her appointment. “We consider that the Minister acted unreasonably in the administrativelaw sense and departed from the scheme of the regulations.” ’ The other member of the Court was Mr Justice Woodhouse, who wrote a separate judgment, concurring.