SCHOOL TEACHER’S GRIEVANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18563, 25 May 1922, Page 8

SCHOOL TEACHER’S GRIEVANCE

ACTION AGAINST MINISTER AND DEPARTMENT. QUESTION OF CONTROL. - (Pa*. Ukitad Paictsa Association.) WELLINGTON, May 22. In. *-» Supreme Court to-day, before Mr Liatice Salmond, argument is being heard ; the case Jean Glady Park, of Carterton, hool teacher, against Christopher James orr (Minister of Education)) and Arthur D. homsor. (retired Assistant and Public Serce Commissioner). The Minister hod inructed Mr Thomson to hold an inquiry to statements alleged to have been made y plaintiff in connection with her school ities. On behalf of the plaintiff it is aimed that the regulation under which is Minister was proposing to cancel or spend the license of plaintiff was untea ires, and that if the regulation was valid ». Minister had shown such bias as, to sentitle him to exercise the discretion courted on him by the regulation. Mr M. [yers appears for the plaintiff, and the olicitor-General (Mr W. C, MacGregor), ith him Sir John Findlay and Mr Hart I Carterton) for the defendant? The statement of claim, after setting irth the particulars of the case, concluded ith a claim that a. writ be issued by the wirti prohibiting the defendants from holdg an inquiry directed by the Minister, or .toe alternative that a writ of injunction » issued restraining the defendants from oceeding with rte inquiry and restraing the Minister from cancelling plaintiff’s rtificates, or in further alternative that a rit of certiorari be issued commanding the sfendants to send to the court, the direc>n or other warant or authority for the dding of the said inquiry. Mr Myers, opening for the plaintiff, said iat many affidavits had been filed, but he sped that the court would not have to ad many of them, and suggested that ufih of the contents was irrelevant. He ily proposed at present to deal with the, >neral question, unless the matter of cerjrari arose. His Honor assented that the facts should i left alone as much as possible. Mr Myers said that the question of law Tolved was very serious, as if the other le’s view were sound every teacher was isolutely in the power of the Minister of juoation of the day. Counsel proceeded ; develop his argument, contending that achors were not the employees of the mister, but of Education Boards. The itute gave them security of tenure, and zht of appeal in the event of their disissal. The Minister claimed the right to nee! the certificate of any teacher, and at there was no appeal. Counsel connded that if the regulation was read litery it was in conflict with the statute, or ■all events with the plain intention of the •gislature. The Solicitor-General (Mr W. C. Macregor). for the department, claimed that iwer was given to issue a certificate, which (plied power to cancel it, and the regulate was therefore valid. His Honor remarked that the Statute ,ve a right of appeal, and counsel claimed at the protection was only against the iucation Board and not against the Miner. Mr MacGregor reiterated that the partment had a right to issue certificates must have a corresponding right to withew them. The Solicitor-General contended that the lole administration of the Act was thrown K>n the Minister. It was his duty to issue ese certificates, quite apart from any dutv at was imposed on Education Boards. He d first of all to satisfy himself, through i officers, that certificates should be issued, jards had nothing to do with the issue or tbdrawal of certificates. That was purely matter for the Minister. He contended at tee Education Act was resHly a skelea, and that flesh and blood had to be led in by regulations. That had been ing on for a considerable time. H© subitted that the regulation was reasonable d proper, otherwise certificates might be testy abused here or elsewhere. trig Honor: The main argument against u is that it is contrary to the statutory nure of office given to teachers. It folivb' on your argument that if a teacher ns an appeal the Minister can rob him the fruits of his victory. Fhe Solicitor-General; Yes, it follows on r argument. We argue that the Minister Ist have the final say. Why should it be asumed that the Minister was going to t- as a tyrant. Supposing a teacher is mly established ir. the good graces of certain board, and the Minister knows 9 is wholly unfit to hold the position, is to allow that to go on? lis Honor; His position it that he should nmunicate his knowledge to the board 10 employed the teacher. His Honor reirked that ' he was merely putting the fuments of plaintiff to counsel for the ence.l the Solicitor-General said if Mr Myers’s fument was , sound any teacher who obned a certificate could go abroad and sere a position, this on the face of the ■tifioat© which maybe should have been' hdrawn years before, but which there • no legal power to withdraw apparently.was argued that once a certificate was ued it was irrevocable, lis Honor: It is obvious that there are es in which a certificate shpuld be withawn, but would it not be an odd inter»tation of the statute, that when a statuy security of tenure has been given ushers against arbitrary dismissal they juld b© left unprotected against some scutive act of the Minister? [he Solicitor-General; Here is a typical i 6. We have here the fact that an iniry was held, and the Minister was not isfied with it. Tig Honor: The fact remains that fibers are, not servants of the State, but the boards. [he Solicitor-General: Supposing a ©her were known to be a traitor, could > Minister not at once cancel his certiite. . \ His Honor: Well, that is the very quesn for the court. >ir John Findlay submitted that the Act ended the Minister to exercise genuine itrol in the—administration of the Act. uld it be the intention that the Minister tst stand by and see the certificate remain the bends of a criminal. It was genuine wer that was given. Mr Myers’s contenn would reduce it to a shadow and a fie. In- a case where a man is found guilty an offence, the board accepted his reflation, but the Minister cancelled his tificato'.rather than see it remain in the ids of a criminal. Sir John contended it a man or a woman should not be owed to retain a certificate if his or f. conduct were bad. His Honor: The Minister dismissed a ©her whom the Board wished to retain. Ur Myers: No such thing happened, as 1 aa the' Teachers’ Institute knows and keeps in fairly close touch. 3ir John Findlay: If the Minister can ly exercise his power, the wish and will the board may as well be struck out of s statute. He submitted that the regular

tioa was valid, and that words “Sufficient cause shown” in regulation 58 were sufficient cause shown, to the Minister. His Honor: What does the word "proved” mean? Sir John: “Proved to the Minister.” H© reminded the court of the gravity of stopping any Minister of the Crown from obtaining the necessary information in such case. Mr Myers said the Minister was setting up a claim to hold an inquiry and to cancel a certificate. The case was adjourned till Thursday.