TEACHER'S DISMISSAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10397, 30 September 1919, Page 6

TEACHER'S DISMISSAL

APPEAL TO BOARD INTERESTING EVIDENCE AT YESTERDAY’S SITTING. In the Magistrate's Courthouse yesterday the hearing of the appeal dodged by Henry Luks against the termination of his services as a teacher at the Wellington Technical College was continued. The grounds of the appeal were that Luks had performed his duties in an efficient, zealous, and successful manner, and that no reason had been given or had appeared as to why ho had been dismissed. The appeal board consisted of Mr W. G. Kiddell, S.M., the Hon. J. G. W. Aitken. .M.L.C. (representing the Technical Board), and Mr P. P. Webb (representing the appellant). Mr G. Frost (chairman) represented tho Technical Board; Mr H. A. Parkinson appeared for the appellant. E. A. Stephens (of Combined Buyers, Ltd.), who had leased portion ot their building to the Board of Governors for use by the electrical classes, denied that tho class-rooms were insanitary, that a noisome smell arose, or that the premises below were packed with inflammable material; H. M. Gore, “Hansard’’ reporter, member of the Technical School Board, said appellant had complained of having been refused permission by the acting-director to see a doctor during school hours. Mr Luks had subsequently admitted that at the time.the request was made the acting-director was busy, and might not have heard tho question. To make the allegation in writing savoured of vindictiveness. WANTED “A GOOD PASTING." Henry William Johnson, plumbing Instructor at the Technical College, spoke of discussions (usually commenced by Luks) on tho latter’s salary and various matters connected with the management of tho college. Frequently Luks made adverse comments, but witness treated them jocularly, as' his remarks generally were such as would give offence had they, been taken seriously. Witness had been compelled on more than one occasion to check the talk. Appellant’s whole demeanour and conduct were usually “on the foolish side,’’ but at times dangerous. His attitude towards tho hoard and tho heads of the school had been somewhat aggressive and severe, wer.e not Of a complimentary nature, and showed that he was not loyal to tho board.

To Mr Parkinson: Luks was not the only one who compained of the inadequacy of the salaries. It was a general complaint. Mr Riddell: I think you can take that for granted. Witness, continuing, said he was on friendly terms with Luks. The latter was in tho habit of making nasty remarks. Once, when Luks had made a remark as to the King’s uniform, witness would have given him “a good pasting” had he not had his uniform on. J. Y. Walls, science master, ' who had been attending electrical classes at tho school, detailed the subjects taught by appellant, the apparatus required, and tho apparatus available. Regarding mechanics, I/uks appeared to lack continuity in teaching, and had not text books. Electricity and magnetism appeared to ho all right. Regarding the sports afternoon, Luks did not show any interest in and took very little part in assisting towards their success—rather the opposite. A MAN WITH A GRIEVANCE.

W. D. Robinson, formerly plumbing instructor at the ’Wellington Technical College, said that when witness left Duka congratulated him on showing sufficient independence on leaving the employ of the board. Lnks liad always appeared to be a man with a grievance—ho was a grumbler, and always made more fuss about details than anyone else. From Luks's demeanour and statements witness concluded that ho was giving tho board a lively time. In witness’s opinion Luks was most disloyal to the board. J. Ellis, art instructor at the Technical College, and president of tho Wellington Teachers’ Association, said Luks had complained of the unsuit-ability of the room in Cuba street available for the electrical classes. Appellant had not adversely criticised the board or tho management—ho was dissatisfied at tlie conditions. Witness considered Luks to be a straightforward man—one earnest and sincere in his work. “SINCE THE WAR COMMENCED.” Francis Shaw, registrar of tho Wellington Technical College, said that on tho day of the termination of Luks’s engagement he met appellant. The latter said he could have thrown up his hat and coat, as it was his last late night. Witness asked if appellant had any work to go to and Luks replied “Plenty.” He also said ho did not want to be pushed out of the college, and said ho wished his appeal w.ould como on while the Technical Board’s Conference was sitting, as it would prove the conditions under which they were working. Ho also said that £3OO per year was no wage for an educated man. Luks appeared to have a grievance against the board and persistently harangued tho teachers and students. Witness had frequently to intervene and say that tho teachers should bo at their classes. Appellant had continued this sort of conduct for four or five years—since 1914. . Mr Frost; Ever since the war commenced? —Vcs. Atila. Adela Wclsby, clerk to tho re- ' giatrar, said appellant frequently spoke to teachers, in the hearing of students, in a manner which was far from loyal t.o the board. CHAIRMAN'S EIVIDENOE.

George Frost, chairman of the board, said that prior to 1914 general complants had been made as to tho conduct of Luks. The previous director had complained of Luka’s conduct and had said he “wished to goodness they could get rid of him.” There had been accusations of disloyalty to the board against Luks. Complaints had been made by parents as to tho faulty equipment of tho technical classes and upon prosecuting further inquiries it had beeri ascertained that Luks had been responsible for the statement. Luks had spoken to outsiders of the ‘‘gross mismanagement of the hoard.” He was not'bnly disloyal to the board, but to tho management. When Luks was spoken to of disloyalty to tho board ho grew very excited, referred to tho accusation of loyalty and to the country whoro he was horn—Germany. 'Witness said he did not intend to discuss

I that phase of the question. The conduct of Luka throughout had been of an irritating nature, antagonistic to board and officials. The board then decided to dispense with his services. The Education Act said dismissal should not be deemed to bo wrongful if the board satisfied the court that the determination pf the engagement was reasonable, having regard to any of tho following circumstances —the efficient and economical administration of the board’s affairs, the fitness of the teacher, his conduct, any other special circumstances irrespective of the board’s mere legal right to determine the engagement by notice. Mr Riddell: What you say is that the board had • lost confidence in him ? Witness: absolutely. APPELLANTS CASE.

Dr McKenzie said appellant had consulted him several times. Lnks was then suffering frpm nervous strain. Witness was satisfied, after hearing Luks’s statement, that the conditions under which he was working were such as to aggravate Jiis complaint. Witness said that if tlie conditions could not be changed appellant would have to take n lengthy rest. Appellant’s manner would be affected' by his nervous condition , and ho would bo liable to become more irritable. Witness was seen by the assistant-director, who, explained tlio difficulties tho board had to contend with. Witness said he had not given the certificate with the idea of forcing tho hands of the board. He said Lnks could carry on until the liolidays, but should then be given extended leave of absence.

CHAIRMAN CROSS-EXAMINED. In his cross-examination Mr Krost said neither he nor the board interfered with the administration of the college. He detailed the method by which the salaries of the teaching staff were fixed, and said the applications usually cams before the board with recommendations from the director. The board considered the applications, and their decisions would be entered in the minute-book. (The court ordered the minute-book to be produced.) Ho did not know of any case where an instructor received a higher salary than he expected—he knew of several cases where the salary was not as high as the instructor desired. Witness looked upon Lulls as senior instructor and not ns head of a department. The board had not granted an increase of salary to Luka since 1914, though it had granted increases to other teachers. They considered that I.uks was adequately recompensed for his services. The Teach, ers’ Association had waited upon the board and asked that the dismissal of

Lukj should be cancelled, but the board after considering the facts of the case, detnd.sl to adhere to its resolufution. They had lost all confidence in Luka; and considered tho efficiency of the school would be increased by having a more loyal and more satisfactory teacher in his place. Witness resented having complaints made to him in public as to the faulty equipment of . tho electrical classes, of pupils waiting their time, and of the parents being so dissatisfied that they intended calling an indignation meeting—all these allegations based on statements said to have been made by appellant. Tho board considered that to continue to employ appellant l would not be in the best interests of tho college. At this stage the board adjourned.