MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 4031, 16 June 1931, Page 56

MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.

QUESTION OF DISMISSAL EDUCATION BOARD’S DIFFICULTIES. CHRISTCHURCH, June 9. The replies already received from among 74 married women teachers in the Canterbury education district who have been asked to show cause why they should not be dismissed reveal the impossibility of making any general rule governing the termination of their service. Of the 74 women, 15 are widows, others are separated from their husbands, and others again are the sole supports of their children, their husbands being unemployed, disabled from war injuries or by sickness, or are pensioners with a bare living, lhe board will be forced to consider each, case strictly on its merits, and even then an investigation of the individual circumstances will be extremely difficult. Should there be appeals against any decision which the board may make to enforce the retirement of some of these women, it is considered that the board may have difficulty in sustaining its judgment. The Education Department was asked by the boards to give an explanation of the powers given to boards by that section of the Finance Act, 1931, which reads: “ Provided also that except in the case of a married female teacher who has completed her course of training at a teachers’ training college, but has not completed the term of service required by the regulations, the board may, with the approval of the senior inspector, refuse to employ any female married teacher.”

The department’s reply states: “It is quite clear that the board may refuse to appoint any such teacher since a new proviso is added to section 71 which deals entirely with the appointment of teachers. The new provision does not in itself deal with the termination of the engagement of married female teachers. If the board decides to give notice of to such teachers the provision of part XI of the Education Act relative to the appeal of teachers against dismissal will apply.” From this it is considered that if a dismissed teacher were to make application to the Court of Appeal provided tor in the Act she would probably be successful in gaining reinstatement in her position. According to the Act, the dismissal of a teacher will not be considered wrongful if the board is able to ’satisfy the court that the termination of the engagement was reasonable, having regard to 'any of the following fixed circumstances:—(l) The efficient and economical administration of the board’s affairs, (2) the fitness of the teacher, (3) his conduct, (4) any other special circumstance. Irrespective of the board’s mere legal right to determine the engagement by notice, the provision of the new Finance Act may be included in the fourth section as “ a special circumstance.’’ In any case, however, given a married woman teacher who is efficient and well conducted, it is possible that the board would have difficulty in proving its case. If in the estimation of the court a teacher had been wrongfully dismissed the court could require her reinstatement together with the payment of compensation.

ACTION IN AUCKLAND. The cases of 124 married women teachers in its employ were considered by the Auckland Education Board at a special meeting. It was decided that notices of dismissal within three months should be issued to 54, that cases of 58 should be deferred for further consideration, and that 12 should be permitted to remain in the service. “ The board’s action has been deemed necessary owing to the present state of unemployment among teachers,” said the chairman. “ Many young teachers are now in distressing circumstances and they require consideration. However, it has been the board’s endeavour not to relieve distress by creating further distress through harsh measures.”