TEACHERS’ SALARIES

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1007, 25 June 1930, Page 9

TEACHERS’ SALARIES

EDUCATION REGULATIONS ASSAILED JUDGE RESERVES DECISION Challenging certain regulations of the Education Department, relating to its powers to fix teachers’ salaries, as being ultra vires, Alfred Richard Merlington, headmaster of the Te Aroha District High School, sought a declarators- judgment in the Supreme Court yesterday against the Auckland Education Hoard. Mr. Justice Smith, who was on the Bench, was asked to decide what commencing salary Merrington was entitled to on his appointment as headmaster of the Te Aroha District High .School, and secondly whether plaintiff was bound to agree to submit the question to the Minister of Education, and whether he was bound by the Minister’s decision. The facts showed that for three and a-half years before his appointment to the Te Aroha School, Merrington had been headmaster of the Hikurangi School at a position salary of £ 403, with allowances. The vacancy at Te Aroha was advertised at a salary of from £ 360 to £403, plus allowances, including one of £6O for the district high school. Both schools were grade V. After taking up his new' position, the Education Board paid Merrington a total salary of £523. The Education Department then notified plaintiff that his correct position salary was £360, not £405, which he was receiving, and reduced the salary accordingly, but allowed him an extra £ls. On behalf of plaintiff, Air. Johnstone argued that the regulation requiring the teachers* salary disputes to be referred to the Minister, whose decision was binding, was ultra vires and bad law, because the authorities showed that where pecuniary' interest was involved, any interested person could not act in a quasi-judicial capacity. Counsel contended also that the regulation took away all rights of appeal. He also criticised the clause which stated that no regulation made under it was invalid, because it dealt, with any matter provided for under the principal •Vet. or was contrary to the provisions of that Act. He considered that for rank injustice some of the department’s regulations would be hard to beat. For the Education Board. Mr. Towle said the case was of far greater importance than that of the individual, because teachers in general desired a ruling- on the regulations. Counsel argued that it was necessary for the .Minister to exercise a quasi-judicial j Dower because of the difficulties that i were constantly arising among 8,000 I r>r 10,000 teachers through changes | •'ind transfers. In counsel’s opinion 1 there was nothing inconsistent between j the Act and the regulations. He nr- j pued that the Minister was an inde- j pendent part3*. and it could not be | suggested that he had any bias be- I tween a teacher and the Education i Board. Mr. Towle submitted that ; "’hen Merrington took the Te Aroha | position, he was entitled to the minimum salary and was now actually receiving £3O more than he had done at j Hikurangi. Plaintiff had the oppor- J tnnity of receiving grading increases ! until he reached the maximum again, j Decision was reserved. -