An Auckland teacher says he has been through mental and financial hell since being unjustifiably sacked five years ago after unproven allegations he touched three girls.
The Employment Relations Authority ruled in favour of his personal grievance claim in November and fined the school $5000 and ordered it to the pay teacher about $300,000 for lost earnings, compensation, and a quarter of his legal cost.
But the school only paid the teacher $50,000 and has lodged a challenge in the Employment Court, claiming the award was excessive. The teacher is cross-appealing, saying it wasn't enough.
The court is unable to hear the case until the end of this year but has now issued an interim decision ordering the school to pay most of the awarded amount and to put the rest in a court trust account until the challenge is determined.
Judge Bruce Corkill said that decision was no indication of what the court might ultimately rule but at least the teacher could now pay his legal costs.
A permanent suppression order prevents the man or the school from being identified.
Speaking to Open Justice about the incident that ended his career and his ongoing ordeal, the teacher said he had hoped matters could finally have rested with the ERA's November decision.
"At the beginning, it was like going down a rabbit hole. It was suicidal ... that was quite possible. You know, it was that bad - especially after the initial shock. But we're coming out of a dark spot – well, I hope so."
"I'm coping because I've got fantastic support from my family, my friends, some of my ex-colleagues and the people that are representing me."
In March 2017, he lost his cool with a class he felt was being too unruly.
It prompted complaints of him swearing - which he accepted - but also that he touched three female students inappropriately on the chest and head, something he says never happened.
He was sent home on paid leave and contacted his union representative. Two weeks later the school dismissed him and he raised a personal grievance.
His sacking brought unwanted attention. Speculation about the allegations was rife. People let their imaginations run wild. Some of the gossip was "horrific".
He went from being active in the school community, to withdrawing into himself and hiding away in his house. He could no longer go to places where he used to shop or exercise without being shunned and called names like "paedo".
If he had to do errands, he drove across the city to somewhere people wouldn't know him.
Initially, he just wanted to clear his name and get back to the job he had held without incident for nearly 30 years. But now he says he wouldn't go back - even if he could.
Police laid charges for indecent touching allegations but in March 2018 a jury took less than an hour to find him not guilty.
With the criminal case over, the only disciplinary issue was his swearing. The (then) Education Council (now the Teaching Council), recommended the school principal resolve the issue by way of an Agreement to Censure. But the principal refused to sign a Practising Certificate.
The matter progressed to the Teachers' Disciplinary Tribunal, which in July 2020, found "by the very narrowest of margins" that the swearing amounted to misconduct.
The tribunal said it was perplexed as to why the matter was before it and that a teacher with an otherwise blemish-free record had his career end that way. It said the matter could have been handled in a far more "mana-enhancing way".
The lack of a practising certificate means he can no longer teach. And, although acquitted of the criminal allegations the mud stuck, making it virtually impossible to get any job.
He had just survived bankruptcy and repossessions, only because of help from family and labouring work he was able to do for a friend. He had since reached retirement age so superannuation payments were helping to ease the situation.
The man said he no longer trusts students or school administrators.
He believed the school took an opportunity to "get rid" of him before he was charged by police - to avoid any embarrassment that might bring on it.
"It was so grossly unfair and they could have avoided all this [nearly] six years of business by putting me on leave [until after the criminal case].
"They thought I was meek and mild and that I was just going to roll over and go away, but I had too much to lose.
Classroom teachers who needed to interact with students sometimes in close physical proximity are impossibly vulnerable, he says.
And, short of going back to the days when the teacher remained at the front of the classroom and students were confined to individual desks, there were few solutions.
"You could only really use CCTV," he said.
"No one that I know was recommending anyone to go teaching not just because of my situation but because of the whole situation of kids and their reactions.
"One of my biggest things and why I'm fighting is that principals and boards of trustees make these decisions without any thought of how it's affecting other people. They take the words or the stories of disgruntled students and just think it's fact, don't verify it."
He said his experience of the justice system was hard.
He felt the school had at times unnecessarily dragged out the process and was doing so again with its challenge to the ERA award.
He said the school was advantaged by its state funding and he questioned its use of those funds to continue court action, noting his own legal bill was already at $150,000.
"I'm paying out of my own pocket and they're just paying out of the state fund so there's no equality because I'm suffering from dredging up fees for the lawyers and living expenses from whatever jobs I can get as well as handouts from parents and family and they're just sitting back having their normal lives, having their jobs – they're not dipping into their own funds.
"The law's not equal for the 'little people'. The ones in power with all the money behind them just can sit back and do whatever," he said.
The man's counsel in the civil case, Kalev Crossland, said the case was the saddest he had seen in his nearly 33-year career. It was the worst case he knew of in the employment jurisdiction.
In response, the school's board told Open Justice it felt the decision to dismiss him was justified based on all the information it had before it at the time.
The school was not involved in the decision to prosecute or the criminal case, which the police and Crown conducted. The decision to lay criminal charges was purely for the police.
Funds for the award would need to be paid from board reserves, which would directly impact the school and the current students.
"For this reason, the board considers it is appropriate to take all steps to challenge the determination, following advice received."
"The matter has been significantly delayed in part by [the teacher] taking a lengthy period
to file his application in the Employment Relations Authority."
"The board of trustees has taken legal advice as to the conduct of its proceedings. The board is confident that it is using funds wisely."
