Part-time Whangārei learning support assistant claims unjustified dismissal

The Employment Relations Authority will hear part-time learning support assistant Kirsty Hilford’s claim that the Whangārei Boys’ High School unjustifiably dismissed her. Photo / Michael Cunningham

A former part-time learning support assistant has gone to the Employment Court for a ruling on whether she had raised within 90 days an unjustified disadvantage personal grievance with the Whangārei Boys’ High School Board of Trustees.

Kirsty Hilford is challenging an Employment Relations Authority ruling that she did not but the ERA did rule she raised within 90 days an unjustified dismissal personal grievance which will be investigated.

Hilford’s employment began in October 2019 when she was appointed as a part-time learning support assistant (LSA) and continued in the same role the following year.

No work as an LSA was performed by her in the 2021 school year. She had wanted to continue as an LSA that year and the school advised her it intended to offer a number of hours of work each week, but no accord was reached leading to any work beginning.

The employment relationship became a troubled one during 2020 on a number of fronts. In the latter part of the year, Hilford disagreed with a grading assessment made of her by the school under her employment agreement.

Allan Halse is advocating for Kirsty Hilford who claims she was unjustifiably dismissed by Whangārei Boys' High School.

The school’s Board of Trustees acknowledged to the ERA that the disagreement remained unresolved and needed to be addressed as a dispute about the application or operation of Hilford’s employment agreement. If a higher grading is assessed, she is likely to be entitled to back pay for 2020.

Later on, in 2020, the NZ Educational Institute (NZEI) represented Hilford in the grading dispute and other issues that arose about her relationships with some of her colleagues.

At the beginning of 2021, the NZEI requested the school to confirm that Hilford’s employment in 2020 had not been for a fixed term and was therefore a continuing relationship under which she was entitled to be offered work that year.

The ERA found her employment ended at the beginning of February 2021 when the school continued to evade the issue the NZEI had clearly raised about the permanency of her employment.

It said the individual employment agreement entered into between the school and Hilford in early 2020 expressly replaced previous arrangements and understandings. It neither expressly nor impliedly identified her position as a fixed term.

Following the ERA ruling, she applied through her advocate, Allan Halse, leave to extend the time from the Employment Court to challenge the ERA ruling unjustified dismissal of personal grievance.

Judge Bruce Corkill has granted leave.

No date has been set for the ERA to hear Hilford’s claim for unjustified dismissal.