TEACHER'S DISMISSAL

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 138, 7 December 1929, Page 14

TEACHER'S DISMISSAL

AN APPEAL OPENED

QUESTION OF PROCEDURE

The appeal of Ernest Marryatt, late ' .headmaster of the Upper Hutt State • School, against his dismissal from that '..post •by ; the . Wellington Education • Board,-was heard yesterday afternoon -lit the Wellington Magistrate's Court, before the Board of Appeal set up under the Education Act—Mr. E. Page, S.M. (chairman), Mr. T. C. A. Hislop (representative of the Education Board), aid Mr. N. A. Foden (representative! of the New Zealand Educa-tional-Institute), which represented Marryatt in making the appeal. The Upper Hutt School Committee -.had "reported to the Education Board that7 certain complaints had been made to tHe.-cdmmittee alleging undue punishment of-certain pupils, a lack of disciplinein- the- school, and discrimination in the-treatment of pupils. The board held an: inquiry into these allegations on 23rd August last, and as a result .-Marryatt was dismissed from the headlnastership' of the Upper Hutt School and appointed headmaster of the Paeka-kariki-School in a'reduced grade. :. Mr. ;H.:"A. Parkinson-; (secretary to the New /Zealand Educational Institute),; appeared as advocate for the appellant,- and Mr. ,T. Forsyth (chairman) -appeared, for the Education Board. '- Mr. .E.Page said that what the Board -of Appeal.proposed to do was to deal T/fitli .-'the- (question of tho proceduro adopted-by the board,-and to hear evidence <next;weekvwith regard to the alleged£gr.bnnds.for 'the dismissal. ■BOARD'S PROCEDURE QUESTIONED. ■ Miv H: A. Parkinson, submitted as a prelimyiary objection, {hat the whole .procedure of,the dismissal of Mr. Marjyatfe'by the board had been irregular ' -and not in accordance with the provi- , -sionS; of the Education Act;, and that the Appeal. Board would, therefore, be -justified -in: ruling it out as null and ; void: ; :Section.B2 of the Act provided that no teacher's engagements should be terminated, except on giving three months'- notice signed by the board's secretary. There was no provision anywhere in "the Act for a teacher receiving one month's notice. He could toe dismissed at three months' notice for.good reason: or, for very good reason, could be dismissed with no notice '■at all. The law had also been disregarded;: in'that an ordinary dismissal of a.teacher required, consultation by the board with the School Committee. : The .Act provided for three months' notice^ except in cases of "immoral conducts or-gross misbehaviour"; and there ■ was .no allegation of either in -any. of the-papers connected v with the .'case.-. The allegation of gross" misbehaviour, in the board's statement of 'defence, -seemed^ to be an after-thought, duo to its finding that a teacher could not Be dismissed ; at less than three months' notice, except on the grounds stated: -in"- the Act, "immoral conduct or gross .misbehaviour." In an Auek.Jand;;case,-; heard some two years ago, ■the Auckland Teachers' Appeal Board had! upheld the appeal of a teapher against i.disniissal, on the sole ground that the; b6ard;.had dismissed the teeh'er_ without consulting: the -School Committee..:; He couldI':supply the Appeal Board-.with a copy of the'judgment in that.ease. ''NOT AN 'AFTERTHOUGHT." Mr./T'orsyth said that the Education Board .'had-acted under section 82 of '.-"the,-Act..' He denied that the allegation.of,".gross ; misbehaviour" was an after and said that the School .Commi|tee ; .had met and had asked for Bferrj'att.'s-Teindvai; ■ '-• ■•'--< '■■ - ■ Mr.'Foden: "The committee did not ask 'fenrhis. dismissal?" Mr. ■' Fofsyth: ' "No; but the only , way^in, which,we could remove him \ was -yby ""dismissing him from that

school and appointing him to another." 'After some further argument, Mr. Pago said that tho' board would take lime to consider the objections raised by Mr, Parkinson. Mr. Parkinson asked whether it was allowable to amend la. notice of appeal or a notice of reply, stating that tho board had amended its notico of reply. Mr. Page said that the Appeal Board had considered that point, and held that the Education Board should be permitted to do so. It was in accordance with the procedure of all Courts in such matters. THE. COMPLAINTS. Opening the, ease for the Education Board, Mr. Forsyth said that the findings of the committee of the board, which inquired into the complaints' against Mr. Ernest Marryatt, lato headmaster of the Upper Hutt School, were as follows:—. "(1) That corporal punishment of both girls and boys in the headmaster's class was much more frequent than should be the case in a well conducted school;'(2) that.'sqine of the punishments—e.g. ,of the. monitor Nola Wale for being in.the corridor—were unjustified, and showed hasty and passionate judgment on the headmaster's part. His frequent apologies indicate that his hasty actions brought him into positions undignified for a headmaster; (3) that, the strapping of adolescent girls and the,-striking, of boys over the face with his'-ihand were breaches of tho board's regulations; (4). tKat the headmaster at times has been most indiscreet and unrestrained in his speech to his class and has thereby caused offence and resentment among many pupils and parents,. In particular the expression, 'sneaks, thieves, and liars,' used by him to his class on such a generally good-humoured occasion as 'break-up' day, indicates a most unsatisfactory state of affairs; (o) that in the circumstances Mr. Marryatt gravely failed in his.duty by/disregarding the invitation of the committee to attend its meetings. "Generally we- find that: (a) The tone of the headmaster's class is very bad; and that ■oir .his own- admission there is a strong nucleus of opposition on the part of pupils amounting almost to rebellion; (b) "that the headmaster exhibits ja'.lacli ■of -self-control that leads lnnvi-iiito such' indiscretions of speech and action as to make him unsuitable for his- present position; (c) that Mr. Marryatt .be-immediately relieved of ■■■Mb*-present responsibilities as headmaster of ajgrade- 6 school, placed on the relieving.staff, and appointed to the first suitable grade 5 headmastership that becomes.vacant." He briefly commented on the notico of appeal put in; ; by. tho appellant and outlined the points in regard to which he proposed to call evidence. It was not the intention, of the- board to put Mr. Marryatt out;, on the street; but, as the change of school meant a reduction _in salary, xit was technically a dismissal. He was now getting £505, but his salary atrthe Upper Hut.t School had s been £535jT-he board hoped that .that slight reduction in salary would be effective, would :'prove to be sufficient discipline; and that the board would have the co-operation of tho Department in getting's Mr. Marryatt into some other grade 5 school. But the board had not such a school in the Wellington district; and t.lie Department had replied that it was not prepared to pay Mr. Marryatt more for his services than his teaching services at his present school warranted. -Mr.' T?6den: .'ls, seems; like another eonniet.betwecn,|hi2. Boarjl and the.-De-partment/" '' Vj- :" f ■;', -: •'• Mr. Forsyth:'-" There are a good Vany of those." "Mr. Forsyth asked the Appeal Board to find that the dismissal was valid, quoting the following proviso from section 151 of the Act: "Provided that such dismissal shall not be deemed^ to be wrongful- if: the board satisfies the Court that the determination of the engagement ..w-as, reasonable having regard' io any- of the'-follo'witig cirtuiustances: (a) The efficient and economic administration ,of, the board's affairs; (b) the fitness-of-the--teacher; (c) his conduct; (d) any other special circumstances 'irrespective of tho "board's

mere legal right to .determine the engagement by notice." "A DEAD SET MADE." Mr. Parkinson said that the board's own by-laws provided that tho complaints against a teacher should be received in writing, and that the teacher should be given a copy of them and time to reply to them. Mr. Forsyth: "That was done to some extent by the committee, but not by tho board." Mr. Parkinson declared that tho whole case was the result of a dead set made by a small group of people against Mr. Marryatt. They had spared nothing in the endeavour to wreak their ill-will on Mr. Marryatt. He was not talking rashly, but was going to bring evidence to support that statement. There was no doubt about it at all, that the whole thing had been very carefully worked up to catch the board on tho hop, so to speak. He urged that the short notice given Mr. Marryatt with regard to the inquiry had not afforded him a reasonable opportunity for defending himself. Mr. Page said that the Board of Appeal had considered the several points raised by Mr. Parkinson, and it held that bylaw 46 of the Education Board provided that, the complaints made by parents to a School Committee should bo in writing, that a copy should be given to the teacher and he should be given an opportunity of replying. The bylaw, however, dealt only with complaints to the School Committee; whereas the matter now under consideration was an inquiry, not by a School Committee, but by the Education Board itself. The Appeal Board, therefore, thought that there was nothing in bylaw 46 to invalidate the inquiry that the Education Board had held; and that that, therefore, was not a valid ground on which the appeal could be allowed. With reference to the other questions put by Mr. Parkinson:—as 'to whether,' under section 82, the appellant was not entitled to three months' notice; anil . whether, under section 72, reference should not have been made to the School Committee before- dismissing the headmaster, the Appeal Board held that it was desirable to reserve its decision until it had heard the merits of the case; because its decision on those points depended to some extent upon the merits —whether, for instance, there had been "gross misbehaviour" under the Statute, and so on. At 4.30 p.m. the hearing was adjourned to-10.30 on Monday morning next..