Good was paid as a teacher responsible for the school’s network, but was also independently contracted to provide additional network development for the school.
Companies controlled by either Good or his family invoiced the school for this work. The arrangement was not properly documented, and the school’s assistant principal, Peter Mathias, signed off on the payments as Good’s manager.
Principal Richard Barnett became aware of the arrangement when he was employed in 2018, and believed it breached Ministry of Education and Office of the Auditor General guidelines on procurement, the authority’s decision says.
Good was sacked, and launched unjustified dismissal proceedings, but failed.
The decision says Mathias then left the school in January 2021. The circumstances around the ending of the employment is not clear, although an agreement between Mathias and the board contained a variety of clauses, including a confidentiality clause, an undertaking to provide Mathias with a positive written reference, and that no further action would be taken in any authority or court.
But the school, upon learning the extent of the arrangement with Good via a witness statement Mathias had lodged during Good’s ERA proceedings, explored lodging a claim.
The decision says the board “wanted to hold Mr Mathias responsible for the significant losses Good’s company arrangements had allegedly caused the school”.
Payments over a set period, which is not fully detailed in the decision, totalled over $1.3 million.
In April 2021, the school’s board lodged a claim against Mathias in the ERA, claiming Mathias was “grossly negligent”, “reckless” and “deceptive in his dealings” with the board. It sought to hold him liable for all losses related to the payments.
Mathias almost immediately lodged a counterclaim, saying the school’s claim breached the confidentiality agreement and was disparaging. He also claimed the reference letter he was given wasn’t “positive” - a requirement of the agreement when his employment ended.
After Mathias lodged his counter-claim, the school withdrew its claim against him.
But the board denied it had breached the agreement, saying the allegations to the ERA weren’t public knowledge.
However, the authority today concluded that by lodging the claim, the school immediately breached the agreement.
“[The claim involved] pursuing litigation against Mr Mathias in circumstances where the settlement agreement had clearly recorded would not be permitted.”
The authority further found comments in the statement of claim were “clearly disparaging” of Mathias.
But Mathias’ claim that the reference letter written for him by Barnett wasn’t positive enough did not succeed.
The authority noted the breaches were at the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness but were concerning.
“There was no good reason for the [school’s claim] to have been lodged.”
The decision noted the board had an experienced employment lawyer as a member, and ought to have known it couldn’t have brought the proceedings.
Mathias’ lawyer even told the board directly that lodging the proceedings was a breach of the settlement agreement.
“The fact that the board withdrew its claims on 10 March 2022 indicated that it must have recognised its claims had no prospect of success.”
As a result, the authority ruled the school’s breaches were “deliberate and intentional”.
“The board has not provided the authority with any evidence that suggests that it understands how hurtful and distressing its disparaging comments have been to Mr Mathias.”
The school was ordered to pay a $4500 penalty for breaching the agreement, $3000 of which is to go directly to Mathias.
Barnett said the school works hard to uphold its legal obligations as an employer.
“As such we follow legal advice about complex or sensitive matters in order to act appropriately and responsibly at all times.
“As such we accept the determination and will take the lessons learned into the future.”
