A teacher who claimed he was constructively dismissed for being an atheist has lost his bid to make a claim before the Employment Relations Authority.
Former Tamaki College teacher Christopher Scott Roy claimed he was abused and assaulted for his atheist beliefs, refusing to bow his head in prayer, andraising concerns about attending a powhiri.
He resigned from the Auckland college in October 2010, and signed a full and final settlement which included a payment to him of $6500.
However, he claimed the agreement was made under duress, and that he was constructively and unjustifiably dismissed from his job.
Mr Roy gave examples of intimidation, including an alleged assault in August 2009, verbal abuse from staff, and alleged bullying and aggressive behaviour. He claimed he was assaulted for not bowing his head in prayer during a rugby after-match function.
A complaint was laid with police three years after the alleged incident, but police found there was not enough evidence to lay charges. Tamaki College denied the assault ever occurred.
Mr Roy said he did not raise the matter earlier because he was taking an `appeasement' policy with the school, however the authority said this must be considered against other evidence of extensive complaints about the college during his employment.
The authority also noted changes in Mr Roy's evidence about the alleged assault, including the date it occurred and the site of his injury.
Mr Roy said he was intimidated and humiliated at a September 2010 Board of Trustees meeting.
Board of Trustees member Alfred Ngaro denied this occurred, and said the meeting was calm and rational and ended with an offer of settlement being made.
The authority said he evidence showed Mr Roy was forthright defending and complaining about his treatment by Tamaki College, and accessed legal advice and representation.
"The evidence does not indicate threats or loss of autonomy at the material time.''
It determined there was insufficient evidence of threats or duress to set aside the full and final settlement, therefore the authority could not investigate Mr Roy's grievance claim.
