“PART SUCCESSFUL”

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 70, 16 December 1929, Page 7

“PART SUCCESSFUL”

APPEAL BY HEADMASTER DECISION OF BOARD The opinion that the evidence did not show that appellant was guilty of gross misbehaviour” was expressed by the Teachers’ Appeal Board on Saturday morning, when giving its decision in the case of Ernest Marryatt, who appealed against his dismissal from ilie headmastership of the Upper Hutt State School by the Wellington Education Board. The board consisted of Mr. E. Page, S>.M. (chairman), and Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, representing the Education Board, and Mr. N. A. Foden, representing the New Zealand Educational Institute. The board, in its decision, stated that. o n September 23, 1929, the Wellington Education Board, after due nreviouslv held, wrote Marryatt stating Enter alia that the board had decided to terminate his engagement as headmaster of the Upper Hutt School as from October 20; that from October 21 until further notice, undertook to pay him as a member of the relieving staff at the rate of £465 per annum. “As it will be Practically impossible to keep you constantly employed relieving in a position of emolument equal to that now proposed, said the Education Board, “it will be necessary for you to apply for such vacancies as present themselves in schools not higher than grade V. From that de cision the present appeal “The Education Act, 1914, says the Appeal Board in its decision, provides in section 82 that the engagement of a teacher shall not be determined except on three months’ notice in writing,, but subsection 2 provides that nothing in the Act shall prevent . the board from peremptorily dismissing any teacher for immoral conduct or gross misbehaviour. It is on this sub-section that the respondent board relies to justify the dismissal of the appellant.

“Far Short of Gross Misconduct. “In our opinion such irregularities or shortcomings on the part of the appellant as have been established by the evidence called before us fall far short of amounting to ‘gross misbehaviour? In that respect this appeal must be allowed. In our opinion, if on the facts existing here, a reduction in grade was to be effected, it could only be done on giving three months’ notice. . , “The second question of law raised on behalf of the appellant has reference to section 72 of the Act, which provides that no dismissal shall take place until the school committee has been first consulted. As the present matter was initiated bv the committee and a resolution had been passed by it urging on the education Board the view that ‘an .immediate change’ was necessary, we think that the committee has been ‘consulted within the spirit of this section. Reduction in Grade. “With regard to the third question involved, namely, whether on the merits a reduction in grade was reasonable, we think, upon a careful consideration of all the facts, that this was justified. “We propose therefore,” the board concluded, “to vary the decision of the board by directing that at the expiration of three months from September 23 the salary of the appellant be reduced from that payable for a Grade VI school to that payable for a Grade V, and that he be retained on the permanent staff and be given charge of a suitable school not higher than Grade V, the board bearing the usual expenses' for conveyance incidental to a transfer. As the appeal has been in part successful, the respondent will pay the costs.” At the hearings, Mr. H. A. Parkinson (secretary of the New Zealand Educational Institute) appeared for appellant, and Mr. T. Forsyth represented the Wellington Education Board, of which he is