APPEAL UPHELD

New Zealand Herald, Volume 78, Issue 24135, 29 November 1941, Page 12

APPEAL UPHELD

TEACHER'S DISMISSAL ACTION UNDER WRONG SECTION [BY TJBtEORAPH —PHESB ASSOCIATION] TATJMARUNUI, Friday A Teachers' Court of Appeal, consisting of Mr. Alfred Coleman, S.M. (chairman), Mr. G. H. J. Campbell nominated by the New Zealand Educational Institute) and Mr. T. Turbott (nominated by the Auckland Education Board), sat at Taumarunui to hear an appeal by R. T. Adlam, a teacher at Waimiha School, against dismissal. Mr, D. W. Dunlop appeared for the Auckland Education Board, and Mr. G. R, Ash bridge represented the New Zealand Educational Institute, Wellington. The facts were that on September 4 the appellant was peremptorily dismissed from the teaching service by the Auckland Education Board, under Section 4, Sub-section 1, of the Education Amendment Aot, 1932-33, on the grounds, of gross misbehaviour. The reason for dismissal was given as follows: "Having regard to your conduct, with particular reference to your attitude toward vour military duties, you have been guilty of gross misbehaviour, and you should be no longer retained in the service of the board." Evidence was called_ to show that appellant refused to sign or take the oath of allegiance, as required by the board, and to salute the flag. There was also the fact that appellant had appealed against military service as a conscientious objector. After deliberation the chairman stated that the Court had come to a majority decision that the behaviour of the appellant did.not amount to ''gros3 misbehaviour" within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, The Court, however, was unanimously of the opinion that, in view of the times and the position occupied by the appellant, the nature of the work in which he was engaged and the Crisis through which the Empire and country was passing, his conduct was such that he was unfit to be a teacher, and could not properly carry out his responsibilities and duties in that connection. The Court, by a majority decision,! agreed that the Education Board had power to dispense with appellant's services, but not under Section 4, and that the appellant should have been given notice under-Section 82 of the Act', In-that ease the decision of the Court might have been different. The appeal was allowed, with costs. Mr. Ashbridge said the institute would not have supported the appeal if appellant had been dismissed under Section 82 of the Act.