| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant claimed principal attempted to get rid of him by ‘unlawfully using and/or tampering with competence procedure results’ - Also alleged harassed and bullied by principal – Performance issues properly raised and dealt with by respondent – Applicant had agreed to resign at end of year - Unpleasantness of situation did not mean applicant harassed, bullied or subject to improper pressure – Performance issues dealt with separately from disciplinary proceedings – Assessment irregularities, not performance issues, led to dismissal – Concerns raised about authenticity and validity of applicant’s assessments – Principal told applicant about concerns and sent him home on other duties – Applicant claimed collective employment agreement not complied with – Unfortunate “suspend” was used rather than “transfer” in letter to applicant as he was instructed to carry out other duties and not suspended per se – Rationale for transfer was not on its face in accordance with employment agreement as no direct reference to welfare or interests of students – However, clear that respondent’s concern was preventing contact with students - Respondent entitled to protect students – Applicant failed to attend meeting arranged to consider assessment issue – At subsequent meeting, applicant mentioned he had interviewed students but refused to provide any notes – Also refused to name teachers he claimed carried out assessments in same manner – Had applicant supplied information, and had it been relevant, respondent would have been under obligation to investigate further - Applicant admitted he wrote answers on board before exams and saw no problem with filling in replacement exam paper for one student had lost, even though he had no way of knowing what student’s actual answers had been – Respondent set out these, and other assessment related reasons, in dismissal letter - Applicant claimed he was puzzled as to real reasons for dismissal but Authority found letter set out real reasons – Applicant’s admissions clearly constituted serious misconduct, he provided no satisfactory explanation for his actions and he could not see that conduct was problematic – Penalty of dismissal was one a reasonable employer would have applied – Dismissal justified - Whanganui College Board of Trustees v Lewis (cited below) distinguished - Length of service two years - Woodwork teacher |