| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant acting as principal while regular principal (“P”) on leave – Respondent wrote to Ministry of Education seeking permission to permanently employ teacher (“L”) already engaged on fixed term contracts with respondent – As P on leave, applicant given prepared letter to sign and send on behalf of respondent – Applicant opposed to L’s permanent employment so did not sign letter – Applicant emailed P to advise considered conflict of interest between respondent’s interests in appointing L, against own and co-workers’ interests in preventing appointment to avoid potential redundancies - Applicant called two meetings with all permanent staff - L not present – Applicant advised staff of letter, and of applicant’s concerns that L not suitable for role and L’s appointment would put positions at risk – Staff collectively drafted letter to respondent expressing views – Staff letter was accusatory of respondent, P and L – P discovered meetings and unsent staff letter when returned to work - L complained to P that confidential personal information shared with permanent staff – Authority accepted P’s evidence that advised applicant twice that matter was private and confidential and permanent staff should stop actions immediately – Applicant held two further meetings with permanent staff to discuss L’s appointment - Staff continued drafting letter to respondent – Applicant’s union advised could lose job if gave respondent letter – Staff destroyed letter and copies of meeting minutes – Unknown person delivered copy of staff’s letter and meetings’ minutes to P – Respondent commissioned independent employment consultant and mediator (“T”) to investigate applicant’s conduct – T concluded sharing L’s information constituted serious breach of duty and disregard for L’s rights – T concluded inciting distrust and concern in other staff was unjustified and constituted serious dereliction of duty – T concluded P and L had no trust in applicant, and applicant refused to accept had done anything wrong but continued to criticise P, L and respondent – Applicant made submissions – Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct – Authority found respondent acted as fair and reasonable employer – Authority considered actions constituted serious misconduct – Found conduct not permitted by Code of Ethics for Registered Teachers – Found no duty on applicant, nor any entitlement, to disclose contents of letter – Found applicant breached code of conduct provisions relating to observing rights of colleagues, having respect for rights of others, respecting privacy when dealing with personal information, and complying with lawful and reasonable instructions – Code of conduct stated breaches risked disciplinary action including dismissal – Authority found at best, actions showed applicant lacked judgement required to hold senior position – Found at worst, actions were rejection of duty to act faithfully towards employer and comply with lawful and reasonable instructions – Found either warranted dismissal – Found fair that applicant treated differently to several other permanent staff, as other staff apologised and applicant was instigator and held most senior leadership role – Dismissal procedurally fair – Dismissal justified - Length of service over thirty years - Deputy principal/Te reo teacher |