ASKED TO RESIGN.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 June 1920, Page 7

ASKED TO RESIGN.

HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER'S CASE. A QUESTION OF STATUS. COURT UPHOLDS APPEAL. ."A sitting of the Teachers' Appeal Court was held at the Magistrate's Court at New Plymouth yesterday, to hear an appeal by H. V. S. Searle, formerly a. toaster of the New Plymouth Boys' High J3ohool, against the action of the Board in dismissing him. Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., was chairman of the Board and the assessors were Mr. 8. G. Smith, MP. (representing the Board of Governors) and Mr. H. A. Parkinson (representing the Secondary School Teachers' Association). Mr. F. H. Campbell, representative of the Secondary Schools Association, appeared on behalf of" the appellant, and Mr. L. C. Sladden for the High Schools Board. THE APPEAL. The grounds of the appeal as set forth ffy the appellant were as follow:-^ "On April 20, 1920, I was suspended by the headmaster on the grounds of gross misbehaviour, the particular charge being: 'Because you did on Friday, April 16, discuss with the junior members of my staff what took place at a committee meeting of the High School Board), and because yeu did, in the course of your conversation, make statements accusing me of having acted in collaboration with Mr. Bottrill' to the detriment of yourself.' This does not constitute gross misbehaviour, and, what is more, I did not make the statement referred to.

"Oh April 20 I was summarily dismissed by ,the Board as from April 20, according to the following resolution passed by the Board on April 24 and communicated to me by the secretary: 'That Mr. Searle be aSked for his resignation, to take effect from the date of his suspension, viz., 20th inst., such resignation to be in the secretary's hands not later than noon on Monday next, and failing receipt of such resignation within the appointed time, to be summarily dismissed.' "I did not resign, and was therefore summarily dismissed. No reason was given, and no inquiry was held to prove the headmaster's charge of 'gross misbehaviour,' and as the Board acted solely on the recommendation of the headmaster (who absolutely refuses to discuss the matter with me), I was given no opportunity pf defending myself." STATEMENT IN REPLY. ; The following is the statement of reply issued by the. New Plymouth High Schoo'ls Board: —

"That you were dismissed from the service of the Board for the reason that after you returned to the Board's service on your discharge from the Expeditionary Force, you, being dissatisfied with on the staff, went to Mr. Bottrill (another member of the staff) and used such language to him that Mr. Bottrill tendered his resigna.tion, and that had such resignation been accepted the Board would have lost the services of a capable and efficient teacher.

''You also discussed your grievances with other members of the staff while the ease was still under consideration by the Board, and by such discussion caused the efficiency of the staff to be impaired." ! Before proceeding with the hearing, Mr. Campbell mentioned that he had cttnfefr'ed with .Mr. Sladden, and siig* jested to him that it would be in thebest interests of. the profession and of the school if th,e evidence was not ,made public. Mr, Sladden had not agreed to this course. * Mr. Campbell also expressed his regret that the High School Board in its wisdom had nominated as its assessor a member of the Board, and although this was quite legal, he thought it would have been better if someone outßide the Board had been appointed, it was difficult for a member of the Board to be absolutely impartial in judging the actions of that Board.

CIROIMSTAJJCES OUTLINED. Mr. Sladden, in outlining the circumstances leading up to the appellant's dismissal, said that in 1910 it was evident that.Mr. Searle would be leaving with the Expeditionary Force, and the Board wished to keep his position open. When Mr. Searle left to go to the front he was receiving a salary of £230 a year, and on his return the Hoard gave Mm a salary of £350. The Board wished to do him justice. But soon after his return it appeared that there was trouble at the school, and this culminated in Mr. Bottrill, one of the masters, handing in hfe resignation, When asked for his reasons, Mr. Bottrill stated that in view of Mr. Searle's attitude towards him he felt it necessary to resign. The matter Was considered by the Board, Who decided that it could not allow Mr. Bottrill to resign in order to allow Mr. Searle to take ' his position. After thorough investigation of the circumstances the Board decided that it was obviously impossible to retain Mr. Searle on the staff, in view of hie attitude towards Mr. Bottrill, and accordingly asked for his resignation. ReXaVdinfe the question of status, Mr. Searle, at the time he went away, was third on a staff of six, and on his return was fourth on a •Staff of twelve, but the difference in his salary was £l2O.

The Board did not see any reason why Mr. Bottrill should resign. Ho was in charge of 100 boarders, and the Board valued his services.

HEADMASTER'S EVIDENCE. William Henry Moyes, headmaster of the New Plymouth Boys' High School, said he had hold that position for 8 years and 5 months. During the first few months he had noticed a want of harmony amongst the staff, particularly a difference of opinion between Mr. Searle and Mr. Bottrill. He first became aware of Mr. Searle's dissatisfaction through a letter he received from him at the end of 1918. The first real intimation wa,s when Mr. Searle waited on him *fter his return and told him he was not satisfied with his status. Witness replied that Mr. Seatle was fourth assistant, with a salary of £350 per annum. Mr. Searle again complained of his status, and witness suggested that he should see the chairman, but that he (witness) would not personally recommend the * Board to make any alteration, Witness further told Mr. Searle that he would be willing to accept the Board's decision. Serious friction between Mr. Searle and Mr. Bottrill followed, causing Mr. Bottrill to hand in his resignation. The .want.of haifflouxftt litis time untmx

the staff was very marked, and witness had' no reason to believe that the fault was on the part of Mr. Bottrill, and suggested to Mr. Searle that he should talk things over with Mr. Bottrill. Mr. Searle refused, Baying that Mr. Bottrill was not a man, or he would hav« "cracked" him for the statements he made to him. He also said he was willing to put up" with Mr. Bottrill in the same way as the other members of the staff put up with him. Witness strongly-objected to this, and told Mr, Searle he did not consider he (Mr, Searle) was playing the game, and that he was trying to give witness the impression that Mr. Bottrill was unpopular with the other members of the staff.»' Mr. Searle then wished to withdraw the remark he had made. The matter was gone into at the meeting of the Board on the 16th, when witness, Mr. Bottrill, and Mr. Searle attended.

"IMPOSSIBLE TO CARRY ON." Mr. Sladden: Did it become apparent to you that the tension was so acute that it was impossible to carry oh? Witness: Yes, Mr Sladden: Then you wrote to the Board. • Witness: After hearing that Mr. bearle had made statements that I had framed the charge against him in collaboration with Mr. Bottrill I wrote ri. J* Board ' and TeceiTe d » reply that I had power to suspend Mr. Searle. I then suspended him. Mr. Sladden: Did you in conversation make any suggestion to Mr. Searle of a ffay, to get over the difficulty? Witness: Yes, 1 suggested that Mr. Searle should be placed in charge of the other house, and .that as Mr. Bottrill was leaving at the end of the year, lie should carry on for the two terms and then be placed in charge of the boarders. I asked Mr. Searle if he would be satistled if I gave him the same salary as Mr. Bottrill. He said no. Witness was quite satisfied with Mr Searle's work before he went away. Mr. Campbell read a letter which witness had forwarded to the Board on 1/th November, 1919, in which he recommended that the first assistant should receive a salary of £6OO, second £450, third £3BO, fourth £350, and fifth £36*. Against the fifth appeared Mr. Searle's name in brackets. Subsequently Mr. Moyes recommended that Ut Bottrill be appointed third master. Witness replied that he had not bean concerned about Mr. Searle's status at that time. He thought that in keeping ft position open for Mr. Searle, at a larger salary than he was receiving when he went away, he was being treated liberally. -Mr. Campbell: Do you think that Air. .VarPe's conduct should have been described as gross misbehaviour? Witness: The term gross misbehaviour is defined- in the Act, and did apply to this case. But I wish to state quite candidly that I do not like the term, and that it is usually not such as can be applied to such cases as Air. Searle's conduct.

MR. BOTTRILL'S EVIDENCE. Christopher George Bottrill said he had been in the Board's service over fiix rears, and had joined prior to Mr Searle, with whom he had been on excellent terms. Witness had looked forward to seeing Mr. Searle come back. Witness had never sought to deprive Mr. Searle of his position, and had not asked the Board for any increase of salary since 1915. He lmd no reason for supposing that anyone was trying to make mischief between himself and Mr. Searle. Mr. Searle sought an interview with witness and complained that he (witness) had gone to the headmaster and complained of Mr. Searle's attitude towards witness. Witness had not complained, but the headmaster had come to him and asked about the matter. Mr. Searle made the specific allegation that witness lioped that Mr. Searle would not return from France and that he would" get his job. The allegation wan absolutely false and without foundation. Mr.'Searle also alleged that witness was endeavoring to influence the headmaster against him, and further declared that witness was a hypocrite in expressing Mb pleasure at seeing Mr. Searle baek again. To Mr. Campbell: After all the trouble arose, he had gone to the headmaster and :said that his position would be untenable if Mr. Searle was placed above him on the staff. He was appointed charge of the house, at a salary of £3BO, at the beginning of the year. The question of third assistant was not mentioned at the time. He had not been concerned about his status.

OTHER. WITNESSES. ~,. Walter George Wilkie, another member of the staff of the New Plymouth Boys' High School, recalled a dis'cu'sion taking place at .the masters' tea tables on a Friday night, concerning the trouble between Mr'. Searle and Mr. Bottrill, Mr. Searle was giving a resume fif what took place at the meeting of the Board that day, and witness heard him make the following remark: "It's pretty clear that Bot and the Boss collaborated about the statement which Bot handed to the Board this afternoon." To Mr. Campbell: On the Monday following Mr. Searle's suspension, the e was a meeting of the staff to send a letter to the Board protesting against Mr. Searle's suspension. Witness declined to sign the letter. Mr. Campbell remarked that the lettcWas not sent to the Board because the staff thought it was too late to be effective.

Miss Janet McLeod, a member of the staff, stated that in conversation, Mr. Searle said, in reply to a question, that he was finding it difficult to settle down after the long break, and was disappointed because he went away above Mr, Bottrill and came back below lira. This closed the Board's case.

CASE FOR APPELLANT. Mr. Campbell asked the Court to take the view that as Mr. Searle had gone away from the school with honor, had behaved with honor while away at the front, had been granted leave in or.ier to avail himself of study at Cambridge, and had obtained his B.A. degree while there, that he had not been fairly treated in being placed in a junior posit'on to Mr. Bottrill on coining back. By going away to the front Mr. Searle had lost his position, and if he had been unable to go away it Avaa quite reasonable to contend that lie would still have been third assistant. By going away be had suffered and quite naturally was dissatisfied. The Board thought Hint by offering him a salary of £350 a year thev were treating him generously, but by "placing him in a junior position to Mr. Bottrill, they committed an error of judgment. Mr. Sladden, chairman of the B*ar<l of Governors, was put- in the witness box bv Mr. Campbell. He said that Hie Board'had never lost sight of the f.vt that Mr. Searle was a member of the stuff, ami in witness' opinion the Board lip.! treated him fnlrly on his return. Edmund Lash, secretary 9- the Bsara <

read extracts from the minutes of the •Board's meetings relating to Mr. Searle's position, and also the correspondence which had passed between Mr. Moyes and Mr. Sladden regarding the matter.

MR. SEARLE'S EVIDENCE: The appellant, Herbert Victor Searle, said he left the school in October, 1918, and went away with the 23Hi Reinforcements. When the war was over lie went to Cambridge University, with the permission of the Board, and while there obtained his B.A. degree. He Liturned'to New Plymouth on March 10, 1920. He left the school as third assistant, and he had the promise of the Board that they would keep his position open for him. When he went hack to the school he found that Mr. Bottrill had charge of the house of which witness formerly had charge, above him. Witness was plaoed junior to Mr. Bottrill, and he went to Mr. Moyes and said he would like a definite underselling as to his position on the staff. Mr. Moyes said that when he kept a position open for him and gave him a salary of £350 a year, he ought to be satisfied. Mr. Moyes referred to his difficulties in keeping his staff together, and said he had had to grant Mr. Bottrill several -jicreaica in salary in order to fctain his services. He also said that lie really ought to have increased witness's salary at the rame rate as Mr; Bottrill's, but had not bothered to do so. Witness did not receive any salary while ha was away. Witness then detailed what took place at the conversation he had had with Mr. Sladden. Mr. Sladdea said lie recognised that witness had a grhance, but that Mr. Moyes had an agreement ,with the Board which gave Mr. Moyes sole control in all matters relating" to the staff. Witness subsequently told Mr. Moyes that he was perfectly weil satisfied with the salary, and his only grievance was that he went away third assistant and came back as fourth, and the man who had been junior to him when he went away was now his senior. At the Board meeting Witness said he would not be satisfied unless he was placed as third assistant, because if he waß placed fourth assistant it would cast a slur upon him in every other school in the country. Witness denied making the remark that Mr. Moyes and Mr. Bottrill had been in collaboration over the. trouble, but admitted, having discussed at the tea table what took place at the Board meeting The s.ext intimation witness had of any action being taken was the receipt of the litter suspending him. After receiving th ; s he called on Mr. Moyes and asked hirn what it meant. On the Saturday the secretary handed him a letter asking him to resign-by noon on the Monday, or he would be summarily dismissed. Witness did not resign, but on the Tuesday handed a letter to the secretary in which he stated that he saw no reason why he should he asked to resign.

To Mr. Sladden: While he was away witness had an' idea from hearsay that he was not going to yet fair treatment. Witness did not think the trouble interfered with the efficiency of the school. To the chairman: If there had been someone else as third assistant, witness would still have been dissatisfied, as the Board had promised to keep his position open for him. . I Mr. Sladden pointed out that the Board had never promised to keep the position of third assistant open for Mr. Searle. Abe Raymond Ryder, first assistant master. 6aid that the dissension was caused by some members of the staff resenting Mr. Searle's treatment. Mr.

Searle did not stir up any strife whatever after he came back. Evidence of a similar nature was given by H. E. Glover, Norman D. Day, .fohn Walter Council, G. H.' Bert rand, C. A. MeKinney, and E. H. Rockel. THE JUDGMENT. Tiie judgment of the Court was as follows: Having heard the parties to this appeal and the evidence adduced by them, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent board was not justified in summarily dismissing the appellant, Herbert Victor Searle, and allows the appeal, and orders that lie be re-in-stated in the position from which he was dismissed, with salary as from the date of his dismissal; and the Court further orders that each party shall pay hia own costs,"