ERA rules demotion of PE teacher unfair

A school which demoted a teacher for a series of incidents, including throwing a tennis ball at a student, overstepped the mark, the Employment Relations Authority has decided.

Paul Meads, a physical education teacher at Pukekohe High School, was verbally warned in 2007 by principal Ian McKinnon after allegedly acting aggressively towards a student whom he "branded" with a tennis ball.

Mr Meads continued to attract complaints and was dismissed after a Board of Trustees inquiry. His dismissal was coupled with an offer of full-time work, but without the responsibility, and higher wages, of his sports co-ordinator role.

The ERA has ruled this demotion was unjustified, and Mr Meads will begin this term in his original role.

Mr Meads, who has worked at the South Auckland school since 1993, was given a final warning in late 2008 after a complaint from three girls that he had again thrown a tennis ball and kicked a soccer ball at students, causing pain and bruising. They also alleged that he made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature, but this was not upheld by the board's inquiry.

In April 2009, the school received a further complaint from a family that Mr Meads had told a student to "drop" their son, implying that the student should give their son a hiding.

In another incident with the same student, he said, "What happens if an FOB [fresh off the boat] walks in and says they are dying of diabetes and you can't understand them?"

The student said he felt the comment was directed at him as he was Samoan and had type one diabetes.

Mr Meads had also suggested in a school report that the student take another subject apart from physical education - a comment which "incensed" board chairman Trevor Gill.

Mr Meads denied all the comments. He said in his submission to the board that he had a strong record in teaching multi-ethnic communities.

An investigation by the board found Mr Meads guilty of misconduct in his treatment of the Samoan student. A subcommittee said a suitable punishment would be to strip his management units from him. However, because this was not legally allowed, the school opted to dismiss Mr Meads and rehire him in a lesser role.

The board said the decision was compassionate. They considered firing Mr Meads, but felt it was not appropriate given his long history at the school.

ERA member James Wilson said that although Mr Meads was reinstated, he was initially dismissed, and there were no fair or reasonable grounds for this.

Mr Wilson said that because one of the complaints was delayed, it did not come after his final warning, therefore he did not deserve to lose his job.

"At the time it made its final decision to dismiss Mr Meads, the subcommittee members had in their minds not just the single act of misconduct which had been upheld. It was appropriate that the board take into account the final written warning but it appears to have been influenced by a good deal more," Mr Wilson said.

He added that he reached his conclusion "by a very slender margin".

"Dismissal is the ultimate sanction. When the factors to be weighed are in balance the scales must tip in favour of the employee. This is one of those cases."

The ruling said that it was unfair for Mr Meads to lose his non-teaching duties - and the additional $8000 in wages - when his misconduct was in his capacity as a teacher.