MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 196, 20 August 1931, Page 11

MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS

BOARD’S RESTRICTED POWERS WHAT WAS THE INTENTION? Whether the restricted powers of the legislature relating to the dismissal of married women teachers really reflected the intention of the Minister of Education, or of Parliament, was a question which prompted action by the W.mganui Education Board yesterday. Some time ago a test case came before Sir Alexander Herdman, in the Supreme Court in Auckland, wherein he ruled that an Education Board did not have the power to dismiss married imen teachers, but that it could, by refusing their appointment to other positions, gradually eliminate them from the service. Since judgment was delivered from the Court the Auckland Board circularised other boards asking that support be accorded a resolution to ask the Minister whether the Act, as interpreted by the Judge, expressed the intention of those who had framed it. Mr J. K. Hornblow moved that the Board support the Auckland resolution. Mr R. Dukeson seconded. “I am against it, for several reasons,” said Mr AV. Adams. “The first is because I am against dismissing long-service, h : ghly-graded married women teachers to pu* on ones of low grade. There are no highly-graded teachers out of employment. Another reason is thet I do not consider it right that this Board should request every married woman teacher to open the door of the cupboard and show the skeleton therein.” Mr M. H. Orari agreed with Mr Adams. “I not only think that Mr Justice Herdman’s judgment is correct in law,” ho said, “but it is right in justice. It is not proper to call upon married women teachers to disclose why they should not be dismissed.” A division was taken on Mr Honiblow’s motion, which was declared carried by five votes to four.