|
The Press
September 27 1996
Court slashes award to creche staff
by Sinead Ohanlon
Former Christchurch Civic
Childcare Centre workers were struck a blow yesterday by a Court of Appeal decision
that drastically reduced the $1 million damages awarded them in the
Employment Court.
The total damages were reduced to $172,978 after the Christchurch City
Council appealed against the decision made by the Employment Court last year.
The 13 creche workers and the city council were ordered to pay their own
legal costs for both courts.
The husband of one of the dismissed workers, Winston Wealleans, said the
decision was not the end of the matter. The group would fight for a full
parliamentary inquiry into the handling of the creche investigation by the
police and the city council.
''There are still a lot of unanswered questions that need to be addressed
publicly,'' he said. ''We will fight on.''
The creche workers were dismissed in September 1992 after the council decided
to shut down the creche in the midst of sexual-abuse allegations against a
former employee, Peter Ellis, and four women staff members. The charges
against the women were dismissed before going to trial.
Mr Wealleans said the group was relieved the Court of Appeal had ruled the
council must still pay the $89,478 in legal costs incurred by the four women
who were forced to defend themselves against criminal charges. Other
compensation was not important to the group.
The lawyer for the 13 creche workers, Hans van Schreven, said his clients
were disappointed with the decision. Their disappointment was tempered by
relief that the whole process was closed and they could start to get on with
their lives.
''It's been pretty devastating for them,'' he said.
''They have been brought from the very highs of the Employment Court decision
to the very lows of this judgment.''
Mr van Schreven said he had not worked out the figures, but it was possible
that the legal process could end up costing some people more than they had
recovered.
He suspected there was some bitterness and anger at the judgment. Many could
never hope to resume their former careers in child care.
''No judgment will ever change the prejudice they face.''
The Court of Appeal found that the Employment Court had erred in law in its
conclusions that the council had not dismissed the workers because they were
redundant, as the council had claimed, but because of the sexual-abuse
suspicions.
The amount awarded for distress was reduced from $248,500 to $83,500. The
five Appeal Court judges said that while there was a procedural failure, it
was limited to the notification of redundancy on September 3, 1992, which was
formally superseded the next morning by a suspension in pay of the workers.
Chief Employment Court Judge Tom Goddard's award of $860,763 compensation to
the 13 staff was in addition to pay received while the workers were
suspended, and redundancy pay.
The award, made in March last year, was one of the Employment Court's largest
orders for a payout for unfair dismissal.
Mr van Schreven said it was concerning for both employers and employees that
there could be so wide a difference in determining a point of law between the
two courts.
The council's legal services manager, Peter Mitchell, said the council took
the matter to the Court of Appeal because it believed the Employment Court
was wrong in its finding that the council had unjustifiably dismissed its
staff.
The council was satisfied that the Court of Appeal had found there was no
basis for the Employment Court finding .
|
