ERA: Assistant principal unjustifiably disadvantaged in leadership restructure

An assistant principal has won $10,000 after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruled that she was unjustifiably disadvantaged in a leadership restructure at her school.

Christine Swann is an assistant principal at the Gisborne Boys High School (GBHS) and has been employed at the institution for 17 years now.

But in November 2021, Swann received a proposed restructure that would remove permanent management units from her, with an associated loss of pay and duties.

She claimed that she was demoted under the proposal, as she was being required to report to a deputy principal, who was a peer previously at her level, instead of the principal before the restructure was proposed.

Swann said she provided a 10-page written feedback expressing her concerns over the proposed restructure, but the proposal still pushed through in January 2022.

GBHS defence to claim

But the GBHS argued that Swann was not demoted, claiming that the senior leadership team "work together as one team" despite Swann now being lower in the organisational structure.

According to former principal Andrew Turner, the restructure comes as the school suffers from a deficit, which was made worse in 2020 and 2021 because of the pandemic.

The reorganisation at the senior leadership team was also carried out to reduce the administrative duties of the principal by cutting the number of direct reports, according to Turner.

"This was achieved by having only the two Deputy Principals report to him, and having the Assistant Principals report to the Deputy Principals," the court document read.

But Swann claimed that she was unjustifiably disadvantaged over the situation, arguing that she was not properly consulted over the changes and adding that she cannot understand why her position needed to be changed.

She sought reinstatement on her previous role, restoration of two permanent management units and associated backpay, compensation for hurt and humiliation, as well as a declaration that GBHS acted in breach of its good faith duties.

ERA ruling on restructure

The ERA sided with Swann over several matter, ruling that the GBHS breached the duties of good faith owed to Swann, and that the removal of her management units was a disadvantage in her employment.

"This decision was not carried out in a way that met the test of justification required by [the Employment Relations Act 2000]," ERA member Claire English said in the ruling.

The change in reporting lines involving Swann was also a disadvantage to her terms and conditions of employment, according to Claire.

The ERA member said GBHS fell short in justifying why Swann's role was diminished in the senior leadership restructure when her peers and colleagues benefited.

The GBHS also failed to properly raise its concerns with Swann.

"By failing to meet with Ms Swann, despite having promised to do so, not only did GBHS deprive itself of an opportunity to correct this problem, it also meant that Ms. Swann did not truly have reasonable opportunity to respond to the proposal," Claire said.

The ERA member, however, noted that there was consultation over the proposed change to the management units despite it being flawed.

She also accepted that the GBHS considered and discussed Swann's position as wahine Māori on the senior leadership team before coming to their decision.

"Even though my view is that Ms. Swann's claim of breach under this particular head cannot be made out, it is understandable that Ms. Swann felt, and continues to feel, marginalised due to how the restructure was communicated and carried out," Claire said.

The ERA then ordered the GBHS to pay Swann $10,000 for hurt and humiliation from the school's actions.

It ruled, however, against reinstating Swann to her former position as the role "no longer exists." It also declined to restore the removed management units to Swann, stating that such order would "not be reasonable or practicable in the circumstances."