| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 238 |
| Hearing date | 17 - 18 Apr 2013 |
| Determination date | 10 June 2013 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | B Quarrie ; R Harrison |
| Location | Kaitaia |
| Parties | Hovell v The Commissioner Pamapuria School |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant justifiably dismissed for failing to ensure students under applicant’s care protected from harm – Authority found no formality to applicant’s instruction to deputy principal (“P”) to cease sleepovers with children – Found applicant had professional obligations to ensure relationship issues between students and staff managed appropriately – Found no evidence applicant took any steps to follow-up on instruction to P or did anything to monitor P’s behaviour – Found applicant’s contention did not know P breaching applicant’s instruction extraordinary – Found respondent’s conclusions based on overwhelming weight of evidence – Dismissal justified – Principal |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as principal. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent’s deputy principal (“P”) placed on leave while police investigated indecent assault complaint against P naming three students at school. Police decided could not prosecute P after main complainant withdrew allegation. During subsequent meeting with Board of Trustees (“BOT”) applicant told BOT letter received from police indicated allegations against P withdrawn. Letter also stated P had been inviting school students to stay at P’s house on reasonably regular basis and stated practice must stop immediately but full text of letter not made available to BOT. Applicant claimed spoke to P and indicated P must stop sleepovers. Applicant claimed unaware P breached applicant’s instruction subsequently and had no recollection of P taking students from school in P’s vehicle. Applicant took no particular steps to manage return to school of P and students who had complained about P. Applicant claimed not applicant’s role to deal with interface between complainant students and complained-about teacher. Three years later P charged, and convicted subsequently, of indecent assault of number of students or former students at school. Respondent commissioned independent investigation and applicant suspended by agreement. Independent investigation interviewed members of school community but applicant did not participate. Report completed and provided to applicant, and disciplinary process initiated. Respondent claimed applicant failed to address first complaint against P adequately or advise BOT appropriately, failed to act appropriately on police warning and give appropriate direction to P, failed to monitor P’s behaviour and failed to put in place arrangements for return to school of children named in initial complaint. Respondent claimed applicant failed absolutely in fundamental duty to ensure students under applicant’s care protected from harm. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed evidence given before Authority not given to independent investigation.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: No formality to applicant’s instruction to P to stop sleepovers. Applicant unable to refuse to deal with outcome of failed allegations by students of sexual offending by teacher. Applicant’s duty to manage reintroduction of students and P to each other could not be delegated to outside agencies, although applicant did not seek assistance from other agencies in any event. No evidence applicant took any steps to follow-up on instruction to P or did anything to monitor P’s behaviour after applicant’s meeting with P. Applicant’s contention did not know P breaching applicant’s instruction extraordinary as every other person spoken to by Authority knew P disobeying instruction comprehensively. Given extent of evidence from so many people, inconceivable applicant did not know what was happening. Respondent gave applicant copy of independent report and applicant had every reasonable opportunity to engage in process. While two witnesses before Authority had not provided certain information to independent investigation, respondent’s conclusion based on more than evidence of two witnesses. Respondent’s conclusions based on overwhelming weight of evidence. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees [2010] ERNZ 1 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_238.pdf [pdf 263 KB] |