|
The Dominion
March 18 1995
Council blamed for sacked staff's woes
by Alan Samson
Sacked Christchurch City Council creche workers were branded as child
molesters because the council handled the situation poorly, Judge Tom Goddard
says in his judgment.
No amount of money could compensate the workers, dismissed in 1992 amid child
abuse allegations, for all the horrendous consequences of their dismissals,
Judge Goddard, the chief judge of the Employment Court, says.
Thirteen former staff share in a personal grievance payout of more than $1
million in the judgment made public yesterday.
The principal beneficiaries are the four women arrested on child abuse
charges shortly after the council closed the creche in September 1992 --
supervisor Gaye Davidson, Marie Keys, Jan Buckingham, and Deborah Gillespie.
Though presenting his conclusions as an interim judgment and giving only
"skeletal reasons", Judge Goddard says by the end of the eight-day
case he had formed a clear view of the merits of the case.
"From my further consideration of it since, I have come across nothing
that has caused me to waver from that view."
Of the experiences of Ms Davidson, he says she had the most contact with
council managers and the greatest expectations of being treated with trust
and confidence.
"The council owed it her loyalty," he says.
"Instead, it treated her as if she were a criminal.
The effect on her has been almost indescribable, extending to death threats
(not from the council)."
Of Ms Buckingham, he says she had sustained not only four years' loss of
income but "appalling social consequences".
He comments similarly of the distress and loss of career of assistant
supervisor Ms Keys; Ms Gillespie had been subjected to confrontations in
public and had suffered a breakdown in health.
In a description of the events before and after the dismissals, Judge Goddard
says that after the March 1992 arrest of childcare worker Peter Ellis,
confidence in the civic creche was initially restored.
But after the police told the then city manager John Gray there were on-going
investigations and that they were satisfied the children were in serious
danger -- though they refused to give any details of their concerns -- steps
were taken by the council that led to the closure.
Mr Gray then erred in dismissing the staff on the basis of redundancy without
the council making its own inquiry toward charges of gross dereliction of
duty.
The number of employees was small, the nature of allegations reasonably
specific, and their dismissals were plainly related.
The council had not fulfilled legal requirements to prove that the dismissals
were for reasons of redundancy, not suspicions of serious misconduct.
The four first applicants had been charged with repulsive crimes, then
acquitted, but only after "a most harrowing experience".
The council was answerable for the loss of remuneration, loss of employment
and career, and for the distress occasioned by its actions.
|
