The deputy principal then lodged a claim of unjustified dismissal with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), which this week ordered that she be reinstated while a full investigation into the allegations against her was carried out.
According to the ERA’s ruling, the woman, whose name was suppressed, along with the details of the school, organised an annual camp for Year 8 students to Wellington, which involved visiting Te Papa and attending the World of Wearable Arts (WOW).
However, in 2024, the school received a complaint from a parent that funds associated with the camp had been misused.
The school investigated, specifically the allegation that the woman had used school funds for her family to attend the camp as volunteers.
The woman said that, over the years, her family had regularly attended the camp in various volunteer capacities and that it had become somewhat of a tradition.
She told the school’s board that she accepted it was wrong not to have reimbursed the school directly for the costs associated with bringing her family.
By the end of 2024, the board commenced a disciplinary process after it found a lack of transparency regarding the funds associated with the camp, and limited evidence of proper accounting.
The school would travel to Wellington to see the World of Wearable Arts for its annual Year 8 camp. Photo / Stephen A’Court
“There appear to be inconsistencies in both the documentation and narrative regarding the allocation of funds raised for these trips,” a letter from the board read.
It was also concerned about the woman organising leavers’ dinners, with money being paid into her account each year without any receipts or reasons for the expenditure.
“Specifically, there appear to be inconsistencies in the handling of funds, submission of receipts, management of budgeted expenses, and the documenting of school assets.”
The woman raised several issues with the board’s subcommittee that was investigating the allegations, including conflicts of interest in its makeup, and that it appeared to be relying on Google searches for information rather than legal advice.
Over the next three months, the parties exchanged correspondence and met in March this year as part of the process.
It was the deputy principal’s position that she had a wide-ranging mandate to organise the camp; the school had previously paid expenses for non-student attendees such as parents and helpers, and this had never been questioned.
She accepted that she’d forgotten to repay the cost of her husband and daughter’s WOW tickets, but said she had not sought reimbursement for things she had paid for with her own money. She said she now realised this was wrong and was happy to pay the cost of the tickets.
However, in August, the board said it would be terminating her employment.
It said, “.. our fundamental concern [is] that you appear to hold a view that community fundraising money for the Wellington trip was yours to spend as you saw fit, and that is somehow different to ‘school money’.
“We do not accept that community fundraising money is anything other than school money, and so you had a professional obligation to handle it with integrity. It was improper to make a decision to spend this money to benefit your family (as opposed to students).”
Reinstatement can be achieved
The woman then turned to the authority, seeking an order for her to be reinstated to her former role.
She said that she had a wide-ranging mandate to organise the school camp and had done so without any specific school policy on how funds were meant to be managed.
She believed her decision for the school to pay for her family to attend as volunteers was justified and in line with other decisions she had made, but that she wouldn’t do the same again in the future.
Authority member Peter van Keulen said that, on the evidence, it seemed unlikely that the board had adopted a fair process for dismissal.
This was because the board did not have a set policy for handling school funds, the board chair had a conflict of interest, and there were key people who were not interviewed as part of the investigation.
The subcommittee also did not record its meetings, as it was required to do under the Public Works Act.
Van Keulen found that the board had dismissed the woman in part because she raised concerns about the disciplinary process the board undertook.
“Whilst [her] conduct in connection with WOW tickets for her family in 2019 and 2023 might leave some residual concerns for the board, for the reasons I have set out above, I do not believe these concerns are sufficient to count against reinstatement.”
He said that the relationship between the deputy principal and the school had been damaged, and reinstating her would be significant.
“Weighing all of the above, it seems likely to me that reinstatement might create some difficulties given the circumstances, but I believe that it can be achieved successfully and, given my findings in this matter, I equally believe that reinstatement should be ordered.
“Reinstatement is both practicable and reasonable.”
The woman would return to her role pending a proper investigation and a separate ruling from the authority for a personal grievance she had raised against the school.
Neither the woman nor the school wished to provide a statement when approached for comment.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū, covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.