MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 6 August 1931, Page 8

MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS

NO POWER OF DISMISSAL ACT HAS UNEXPECTED INTERPRETATION AUCKLAND TEST CASE The effect of a decision given in the Supremo Court at Auckland by Mr Justice llerdmau is that the New Zealand Government, through the faulty drafting of Section 34 of the Finance Act (No. 2), lias defeated what was its avowed purpose—the dismissal of married women teachers not, dependent upon the. profession for their livelihood. No Education Board in Now Zealand may now dismiss a married woman because she and her family have other adequate means of support; according to tho Court’s interpretation of the Act, it may only refuse ail appointment to such a woman. In tho 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 he dropped (says the “Press”). According to the judgment of Mr Justice llerdtnan, it, was plain beyond all question that 'lie Act defined a Board’s power only in relation to the appointment of teachers and not to their dismissal. That tho Government intended the legislation to secure dismissals and not, merely to prevent appointments of married women teachers, is dearly shown in tho remarks of tho Minister for Education (the lion. 11. Atinore), which were published in the "Press” on 18th June. 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 tlie consent and approval of the senior inspector, who is an ofiiccr of the Department,” said Mr Atmoro, discussing the question whether the appeal of a married woman teacher against her dismissal by an Education Board might not, he sustained by the Court of Appeal. “I find that almost all the Boards arc in agreement,” he added, “that in cases where the dismissal could he made without imposing any hardship on tho teacher and an appointment could be made not detrimental to tho children, then the married women teachers should he replaced.” DEPARTMENTAL WARNING . In spite of this statement by tho Minister, and in spite of tho intention ol' the Government to dismiss the teachers as clearly understood by members of Parliament and by Boards, tlie Education Department sent a note of warning lo all Boards that if they decided to give notice of dismissal to married women teachers “the provision of Part XL of the Education Act relative lo the appeal of teachers against dismissal will apply.” Part XI. of this Act defines the constitution of the teachers’ Court of Appenl, and states that the dismissal of a teacher would not he considered wrongful if the Board was able Lo satisfy Hie Court “that the determination of the engagement was reasonable, having regard to any of the following fixed ' circumstances : (1) The efficient and economical administration of tho Board’s affairs. (2) The fitness of the teacher. (3) Ilis conduct. (4) Any other special circumstances irrespective of the Board’s mere legal right to determine tho engagement by notice.” BOARDS TAKE ACTION It was considered that the provision of Hie Second Finance Act might be included in the fourth section as ‘a. special circumstance,” although, in any case, given a married toachor 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 22nd May the Canterbury Board decided that all married women teachers should he called upon to show reason, withiii two months, why their engagements should not he terminated. Of the 74 women affected, the majority had good cause to hold their positions: 15 were widows; others were separated from their husbands; others, again, wore 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 tins 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 9th July the Auckland Board decided to givo notice 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 tho decision of Mr Justice Ilerdman in a test case which was taken to the Supreme Court. Following (his decision, tho Canterbury Board will ho unable to find any employment for the 30 unmarried women whose applications arc at present filed. The future policy of the Board will bo the consideration of each case on its merits. If a married woman happens to bo the highest-graded applicant for a position, and she can show good reason for wanting work, the Board will still give her consideration. Other things being equal, however, the single woman is always likely to have preference.

NELSON NOTICES OF DISMISSAL QUESTION BY MR G. C. BLACK (From “Tho Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, sth August. Mr O. C. Black (Independent, Moueka) gave notice of his intention to ask the Minister of Education whether in view of the decision of Mr Justice Ilerdman in the Supreme Court at A tick land yesterday regarding the (lowers of education hoards in terms of Section 34 of the Finance Act, .1931, he will this session introduce legislation empowering education hoards to dismiss, with the approval of the senior inspector, any female married teacher at present employed :n their particular hoard district. Mr Black said that, anting in terms of the Finance Act, 1931, on which the decision above quoted had now been given, the Nelson Education Board, for example, had given notice to several married women teachers in its employ after a. full consideration of the individual cases and understanding that the intention of Parliament, last session was to vest them with discretionary powers.