WRONGFUL DISMISSAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17810, 17 December 1919, Page 6

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL

Members of the teaching profession throughout the dominion will have been interested in the result of the appeal," heard within the past few days, by Mr William Lloyd Phillips against his dismissal by the Otago High Schools Board of Governors. The decision / of the Teachers' Appeal Court, which found that the dismissal of the appellant was wrongful and that the board should reinstate him in his position, possesses a distinct importance as an illustration of tho safeguards that exist against the arbitrary and I unjust exercise of power by educational authorities in dispensing with the services of teachers in schools under their control. The salient facts 'of the case were simple. Some members of the Board of Governors seem to have conceived the idea that the system of physical instruction carried out by Mr Phillips was faulty. In explanation of the dismissal, the court was informed that the board came" to tho conclusion that the system was not adequate and that it had taken the opportunity of getting expert advice on the subject. The expert secured was Captain Brocks, chief inspector of physical and recreational training in the New Zealand Defence Forces, a position to which he was appointed by tho Government on the recommendation of the War Office. On the strength of a visit of inspection to the Boys' High School lasting some twenty minutes—an inspection which could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as sufficient, not to say exhaustive—Captain Brocks condemned the system .practised by Mr Phillips, and did not conceal from the hoard that he knew where to secure for it a man capable of

organising and carrying: on a superior system, Tho hoard Beems to havo folt that it had obtained all tho information that it required to fortify it in tho conclusion at which it had arrived. Despite tho fact that the principals of both High Schools entirely disagreed with the report of Captain Brocks, when this was submitted to them, the board serenely decided to reorganise tho physical training, to appoint a' man to control the whole scheme, and to terminate the engagement of Mr Phillips, to whom it gave three months' notice without assigning any reason for its action. It is pertinent to note, further, that before giving Mr Phillips notice of dismissal tho board did not consult the rector, as it was required to do, under tho scheme of control governing the High School. How it came to commit such an error is the more inexplicable in view of the fact that its personnel includes no fewer than five lawyers. In this circumstance .seems to repose tho touch of humour in tho ease. The effect .upon the appellant, had the board's action in respect to his dismissal been sustained, would clearly have been disastrous. His career would havo been practically ruined. Fortunately, however, there existed an effective instrument in tho Teachers' Appeal Court for the redress of an undoubted wrong. The Board of Governors, as it was clearly shown, had not a leg to stand upon, and its expert proved, on examination before the court, a weak reed to lean upon. Satisfaction in the reflection that justice has been done in this case may well be mingled with a feeling of regret that the vindication of an important principle should havo been necessary in the circumstances that have been disclosed.