TEACHERS’ POSITIONS

Taranaki Daily News, 4 July 1931, Page 9

TEACHERS’ POSITIONS

CASE OF MARRIED WOMEN. THE DISMISSAL QUESTION. Interest attaches to an opinion given to the executive of the New Zealand Educational Institute by Alessrs. Bel), Gully, Alackenzie and O’Leary, of Wellington. Following receipt of its solicitor’s opinion, the board, took the step of dismissing a number of married women t?achers in its employ. The Wellington opinion states: —“We are of opinion that the new proviso relates only to the cases of (1) the appointment of a teacher to a position after applications have been invited, and (2) the transfer of a teacher from one position to another to which is attached a higher grade of salary. We do not think that the new proviso confers upon any education board tho right to dismiss a female married teacher from a position already held by her under the board, without such female married teacher having the right of appeal under section 1-19 of the Act of 1914 against such dismissal.

The proviso added by the Act of 1931 becomes a third proviso to sub-section 6 of the main Act. It is clear that the first paragraph of sub-section 6 relates only to cases in which applications have been invited or cases of a transfer of a teacher from one position to gnother to which is attached a higher grade of salary. The general rule is that the board is to select for appointment or transfer the candidate who is highest on the graded list of teachers. The first paragraph itself contains one exception to this rule, namely, the case in which in the opinion of the board and the senior inspector some other candidate is more suitable for the position under consideration. The first proviso contains another exception, namely, the case in which a teacher of a particular description or with special qualifications is required, and in that case the board is directed to select the candidate highest on the graded list of teachers who satisfies the description or possesses the special qualifications. The second proviso contains another exception, namely, the exception relating to tho interval which must elapse between two appointments of a teacher to permanent positions. The new enactment, being a third proviso, must in our opinion be treated as a third exception to the general rule set out in the first paragraph. “We think that the word ‘employ’ must be construed by reference to the positive enactment to which the proviso constitutes an exception, but there is another and a very strong reason in support of the view we have taken. If the proviso means that the board may dismiss any female married teacher independently of the provisions of sections 82 and. 149 of the Education Act, 1914, that is to say, without right of appeal, then the Legislature must be held to have repealed by implication only an enactment of a remedial character and of the greatest importance to the class of persons for whose benefit it was enacted. The Court will naturally strive against such a construction and would, we think, say that if such a construction was intended the Legislature would have expressed the matter in plain terms, and would have made it clear that the right of appeal under section 149 of the Education Act, 1914, was intended to be taken away in the case of female married teachers.”

The board intends to apply to the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment on the question, and it has invited the institute to bo represented. The board is now awaiting a reply from the institute before taking this step.