Imagine dedicating 18 years of your life to a job you love, only to feel betrayed, unheard, and forced to walk away. This is the heartbreaking reality for Susan Mowat, a former teacher at Christchurch Boys' High School, who recently won a $25,000 compensation battle against her former employer. But here's where it gets controversial: while the Employment Relations Authority acknowledged her suffering, they stopped short of calling her dismissal unjustifiable. So, was she pushed out, or did she jump? Let’s dive into the details.
Mowat’s ordeal began in 2017, when a series of anonymous letters criticizing the school’s headmaster, Nic Hill, were sent to the board. Hill suspected Mowat due to past conflicts and similarities in handwriting and tone. However, an independent investigation failed to pinpoint the author. Despite this, Mowat claims the board’s handling of the situation—and their subsequent treatment of her—made her position unbearable. She resigned in 2019, citing bullying, false accusations, and a toxic work environment.
And this is the part most people miss: The Employment Relations Authority found that while Mowat wasn’t unjustifiably dismissed, the board’s response to her concerns was deeply flawed. Authority member Lucia Vincent described the board’s approach as a “shutdown,” where they dismissed Mowat’s grievances without proper consideration, leaving her feeling unheard and unsupported during a vulnerable time. This, Vincent ruled, was an unjustifiable disadvantage, breaching the duty of good faith owed to Mowat as an employee.
Mowat’s lawyer, Kathryn Dalziel, emphasized the emotional toll of the experience, stating, ‘This decision formally recognizes the significant impact these events had on her wellbeing, her reputation, and her ability to work in an environment she had loved and contributed to for 18 years.’ Mowat hopes her case will prompt schools to reevaluate how they handle employee concerns, ensuring fairness and transparency.
The board, however, seems to be breathing a sigh of relief. Chair Emily Flaszynski acknowledged the procedural misstep but highlighted that no other negative findings were made against the school or Hill. She praised Hill’s leadership and expressed a desire to move forward, focusing on staff and student wellbeing.
But here’s the lingering question: Did the board’s actions indirectly force Mowat out, or was her resignation a personal choice? The authority’s ruling leaves room for interpretation, sparking debate about workplace accountability and the line between constructive criticism and unjustifiable disadvantage. What do you think? Was the board’s response fair, or did they fail Mowat? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is one conversation that’s far from over.
