TEACHERS' APPEAL BOARD.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 11371, 2 September 1908, Page 5

TEACHERS' APPEAL BOARD.

At the sitting of the Board at Danncvirke, William ]). McClure uppeah-d against his dismissal from the mastership of the Kiritaki school, on the grounds that he had not receved proper notice of dismissal, and, secondly, that if such notice was given it was subsequently withdrawn. Mr Foster, of Wellington, represented Mr McClure. He said that the Education Act, 1904, was passed with a. view to giving a, teacher permanency. He argued, and quoted various passages of the Act m support of his contention, that Mr McClure had been dismissed and had been appointed relieving teacher at a smaller school. On December 18th, Mr McClure received notice that the Board had! decided to remove him from the Kiritaki School, and thought he would do better m a smaller school. In March he received a letter from the Board that his term of teachership at j Kiritaki would cease on March 31st. When March 31st came he, however, received no communication from the Board, and on April 28th he received a j wire to report himself for relieving duty at the Napier South School. That lie had; done, under protest. He held that I the notice received had expired through the inaction of the Board, and that the inaction rendered further statutory notice necessary. He (Mr Foster) held that Mr McClure had been dismissed on March 31st. Mr Orawshaw, for the Education Board, stated that the Board combated the contention that Mr McClure had been dismissed. Mr McClure had not been dismissed from the service . of ., the Board, he being merely transferred from one school to another. He quoted from the Act to show that the Board had power to remove a teacher from one school to nnpther irrespective of the salary. The Bench askedi how Mr Crawshaw got over the form of notice of appeal, viz., the thirteenth schedule, wherein it was stated that a teacher could protest I against dismissal from a public school. Mr Orawshaw said he did not attempt to get over it. The appellant argued that he had been dismissed from a certain school ; the Board held that tliere had been no dismissal from the service of the Board, but only a transfer. On this point the Board reserved judgment! arid proceeded to hear evidence, which was very lengthy and occupied the Board till nearly. 10' p.m. ... The Board held that the appellant- had failed to establish his ease, , and stated that a written judgment would be given on Thursday, when: costs- would be assessed. 1 .-,