EDUCATION ACT CHALLENGED

Hokitika Guardian, 27 June 1930, Page 8

EDUCATION ACT CHALLENGED

PAYMENT OF TEACHER

CLASH WITH COMMON LAW

ALLEGED

AUCKLAND, June 24

An interpretation of certain regulations under the provisions of the Education Act of 1.914 was. sought in a civil action 'before Mr Justice Smith at the Supreme Court. Plaintiff was Alfred Rich ail'd Menington (Mr Johmstone), head master of Te Aroha High School. Defendants were the Auckland Education Board (Mr Towle). Mir Towle said that the Education Department would be bound by the judgment of the Court. Mr Johnstone claimed that the regulations were extraordinary and to some extent ultra vires, particularly those relating to the salaries of teachers. He vigorously attacked the legislation under which the Department prescribed the salaries, allowances and other amounts that might 'be paid to teachers. “There is this remarkable j provision,” lie said, “that no regulation under the Education Amendment Act, 1919, shall he invalid if'it provides for something dealt with in the princinal Act or is contrary to the provisions of that Act.” The Education Deoartmeiit, if it could prevail upon the Governor-General in Council, might actually disregard the Statute and become a law unto itself upon such an important matter a s the regu- : lation of the salaries of public school teachers, Mr Johnstone declared; “but,” he added, “the rifles of the law are, fortunately, not changed uy this extraordinary piece of legislation. Some of the regulations on the face of them, are hopelessly bad and ultra

vires. One of the provisions of the regulations was that any dispute with a teacher regarding his salary should be submitted to the Minister, whose dc- | eision should be final, said Mr John- j stone. It would he interesting to hear j the views of the Lord Chief Justice of j England on such an obvious case of a man being judge on bis own cause, i The Minister was not the proper judge in a dispute lietwcen a teacher i and the Department of which he was the head. It was monstrous to suggest That the Minister’s decision should he final. • j His Honour remarked that the Privy Council wils liie final court of appeal. Mr Johnstone: As I sec the conduct of the Department, I would not be surprised if the case went to the Privy Council. Any interference or right to interfere with the common law rights of an employee must be conferred in plain and unambiguous language, •ounsel contended. He submitted that the auitlxurity of the Governorgeneral to make regulations, being derived from section 15 of the Act, viis strictly defined, and there was nothing in that section which authorised such a departure as was contemplated in the present instance. Plaintiff was a teacher of over twenty years’ experience. For three and a half years prior to September, 1927, he had been head teacher at Hikurangi School, which was grade V.. and had been receiving a salary if £405, together with a grading addition of £6O and a house allowance of £6O. On September 13, 1927, he took up an appointment as head master at Te Aroha High School, and received £6O as a secondary addition above his former salary. Some months later the Education Department in Wellington advised the Auckland Education Board that the correct commencing salary was £360, not £405, with several additions. The Auckland board was accordingly required to reduce the salary, hut the Director of Education agreed to an increase from £360 to £375. Stating that, for rank injustice, ceitain of the Department’s regulations would Ibe hard to beat, Mr Johnstone said that, if Mr Merriiigton had been transferred to another school of the same grade, his salary would have icniained the same; but because, in addition to a. school of the same grade, there was also a secondary school, his salary was reduced. His Honour: It is difficult to believe that that is the construction which the department will admit. Mr Johnstone said that .was* what had actually happened in this case. Mr Towle said the ease was of far greater importance than the case ot the individual teacher concerned. Mi Merriiigton was now in sense “one |of them,” as be bad joined the dej partment. Teachers in general, how- | ever, wanted a ruling. Among the 8000 or 10,000 teachers in the country difficulties were constantly cropping up from changes end transfers and it was obvious that there must he some quick and easy wav oi settling those difficulties. It was necessary that the Minister should have the power tlui.t had been given to him by st-atnxe. There was• nothing inconsistent between regulations and the Act itself. The Minister was an independent party and it could not be suggested that lie had any bias as between a teacher and the Education Board employing the teacher. M ben Mr Merrington went to Te Aroha he i was transferred to a- new '.position and accordingly was entitled to the minimum salary for that position. He actually obtained £3O more than he had had a* Hikurnijal ■oiitineed Mr Towle, and had also an opporI (unity of grading increases until he j reached the maximum again. The reI gulatious were not unfair or unreasI enable and should therefore stand, j His Honour reserved his decision.