The Evening Post
March 20 1995
A case for justice
The stain of being associated with child molestation has been partly
mollified by the Employment
Court decision compensating 13 Christchurch City
Council creche workers.
The workers, all associates of jailed molester Peter Ellis, will share $1
million awarded against the council for procedural unfairness during the
closure of its civic creche in 1992.
The decision by Judge Tom Goddard has the effect of drawing together threads
of public disquiet and in a wider context should be seen as a cautionary
benchmark for anyone contemplating hasty witch-hunts or sackings when there
are no proofs of wickedness.
Notions of fair play being abandoned run true in the Christchurch case: the city council
sprinted for cover to distance itself from its creche workers by putting them
on the street. It was not just an error of judgment; it was a pre-emptory act
of rank cowardice to fend off shrill and uninformed community clamour.
The dismissals constituted a rotten performance by the council and if left
unpunished would have demonstrated to workers everywhere that some employers
could put community concerns first, however unjustified and asinine they
might be. It could also have confirmed what liberals have long suggested -
that fair play in labour relations went out the door when they lost their tap
root into government in the 1980s.
Christchurch City Council might not have been able to hose down the
witch-burners or spike the ducking stool brigade, but it should have stood by
its staff until the outcome of the inquiries were known. Instead, it opted to
dump its creche staff and let them run the gauntlet unprotected. The effect
was that creche workers found themselves vilified and at the mercy of a wave
of bitterness. The council might just as well have erected stakes in the
Square.
The Goddard judgment reveals considerable dismay about the council's actions
and indicates a high level of sympathy for the women at the centre of the
case. Their agony is palpable and no amount of indignation or money will heal
their wounds completely. The money will be at best a balm to soothe pains
inflicted when the council went weak at the knees. The sorriest aspect of
this matter is that despite substantial compensation, there is not one person
involved who could be described as a winner: the creche case has victims and
losers only.
The council has now got the message, but this unsavoury matter remains
unfinished. Police activity about the creche case is to go to the Police
Complaints Authority; there were renewed calls at the weekend for a public
inquiry; and Ellis wants leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
The useful spin-off from the judgment is that it should hearten men and women
who work in creches everywhere and reassert the idea of fair play and rules
in industrial relations. The creche movement is an essential part of the
return-to-work movement in New
Zealand and those who work in them are
generally honourable and decent. In Christchurch the city council's next duty
is to rebuild with its remaining workers the trust it squandered.
|