TEACHER'S APPEAL

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 79, 1 October 1919, Page 8

TEACHER'S APPEAL

DISMISSAL FROM TECHNICAL

SCHOOL

FURTHER EVIDENCE TAKEN.

Hearing of the appeal lodged by Henry Luks against s his dismissal from the teaching staff of the Wellington Technical College was continued at the Magistrate's Court to-day. Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., presided, with the Hon. J. G. W. Aitken, M.L.C., and Mr. P. P. Webb as members of the Appeal Board. ; .

Mr. H. A. Parkinson, representing the appellant, said that he was quite confident that no previous case of its kind brought forward hid been more justified than this. There had been an attempt to discredit the appellant's reliability, but evidence would be brought to dis-, prove; this. The complaints • which had' been;made by the parents concerning the lack of facilities,'etc., were, he con- • sidered, quite justified. The appellant, on receiving notice from the board, -was conscious in the justice of his case, and felt that his duty required'him to* carry on as long .as the time (stated in the letter), permitted. Evidence would be brought,..to > prove appellant's earnestness in his .work, and faithfulness in his duties,; and.as,,to his successful, skilful,' and, reliable; instruction., The regr'ej of his, (appellant's) classes 'at his .dismissal - was practically unanimous, and if the Court decided that he should-go back he would receive; the heartiest welcome. Regarding the complaints, which, had been made concerning insufficient instruction, the fact of the matter, was that 'the „ board ' had.: been, undertaking contracts thai, it!, could' not fulfil—taking too many; students. The conditions re- ■ quiring certain honrs for practical .work had not been fulfilled. There was every reason, ,Mr. Parkinson continued, to suppose that appellant's: work had given every; satisfaction to,his , employer. It was true that relations.-.between appellant and the': board had : been' somewhat strained, ibut- there had, been reasons. Appellant felt that' he had three grievances—the question of salary, :the conditions' under which, he, a technical expert, was required to do, technical work, and the matter of his health. Appellant was a 1 man of excellent,character. ,

Evidence on appellant's ';- behalf was then called. : ( , * . ' .; . ;

George Morris, motorman, in .the employ . of. the City- Corporation, detailed his'meeting with Mr. G. Frost (Chairman of the Technical School Board) at ths Brooklyn tram terminus, and the conversation' between them in connection with complaints made, by a son of witness regarding the, condition of /& classroom, and , also ,tlie condition ■of the apparatus in the .room. Witness spoke of,the same matters later, and was told by Mr. Frost that "it was news to him," and that he would go into the question. Later,' Mr. Frost arranged for witness to meet him at the Technical College and look, over the plans of the new building. Witness considered the plansall right, as far as the future was concerned, but asked, "What about tho boys attending the college, at present?" Mr. Frost answered that it had not been possible to obtain suitable rooms. Witness questioned other boys attending the same class as his son, finding that they had similar complaints to make,' arranged to visit the in the old ■Trades Hall' in Cum'-street. 'He considered, that the".boys'..complaints had been well founded. -The building was old and unsuitable, and the room very noisy by reason of, the heavy street traffic. '.;■■'■-.'

"Was not your informanti'Mr. Luks?" asked Mr. Fro6t.rr-"No,' not directly, but from; Mr.''Luks 'through' my son.' '■' I had not met Mr. Luks when;l first saw 'yOU.'V, "'■',' .'■'•.■ ...''.■: . ' ■■' Mr. Frost:, "I have no recollection of your son being mentioned."

Witness , admitted liaving threatened to call an indignation meeting of citizens' to protest against the manner. in which the college.was -run. '.' ■■■ ■;

„ Frederick.•'Martin Renner, an'assistant master, at tho Wellington Boys' College and an ; instruotor at the. Technical College, described the appellant as an earnest arid upright ; man, certainly not pTone to tho . use of objectionable lan-

guage.

1 INADEQUATE APPARATUS. Alfred Daniel Varian, instructor in engineering, ■: also deposed as to the. appellant's good chai'acter ' '/' .

William Francis Gledhill, electrician, and a student at the college, said, that tlie apparatus provided was quite inadequate for the tuition of practical men. Hena"y : lsorter . Ban-ington,■..,oaoftier student,' said that ever ; since he had attended... the college, three and a half years or thereabouts, the electrical apparatus had been . inadequate—3o per cent, of what there was was .unworkable, and the remaining 10 per cent, not practicable. He had complained to Mr. Luks, who had replied that he. had applied, to the board, but had ■ not been able to obtain more apparatus.- About two years ago a number of'students approached the': board,. and had obtained' about. £30 worth of material..

"What I cannot understand," said Mr. Riddell, "is" that there is no. record in the hands' of'the .board of directors respecting: this shortage."

Witness : "As far as I can see,; the board does not know anything about the matter." -: ■■■„.,■ \

Mr. Riddell: "If your complaints had been placed,on record, instead of being merely verbally made, the position would have been more satisfactory."

"Do you,get the practical work in your classes that you require?" asked Mr. Parkinson.

Witness.: "We: do not."(Proceeding.)