Christchurch Boys’ High School will pay $25,000 to a former teacher after a protracted dispute over anonymous letters and what the woman described as a hostile work environment. It’s a hefty price to pay for a “shutdown approach,” as one authority member put it—but does it truly address the core issues of workplace conflict and fair treatment?
Teacher’s Wellbeing Jeopardized by School’s Response
A former teacher at Christchurch Boys’ High School received $25,000 in compensation after claiming she was unfairly disadvantaged during a dispute involving anonymous letters and accusations.
- Susan Mowat resigned in 2019 after a two-year conflict with the school’s headmaster.
- The Employment Relations Authority found the school board didn’t adequately address her concerns.
- The board denied the claims, calling them vexatious and untimely.
- Mowat was awarded $25,000 for the physical and mental distress suffered during her final years.
Q: What led to the $25,000 compensation for the former teacher? A: Susan Mowat received the payout after the Employment Relations Authority determined the school board unjustifiably disadvantaged her by dismissing her concerns regarding anonymous letters and accusations, impacting her wellbeing and ability to work.
Susan Mowat resigned from her 18-year teaching position at Christchurch Boys’ High School in 2019, following two years of disagreements with headmaster Nic Hill. Mowat asserted that the situation significantly affected her wellbeing, reputation, and professional capabilities. The school and its board contested these claims, labeling them as baseless and filed outside the permissible timeframe.
Mowat brought forth claims of unfair dismissal and unjustifiable disadvantage, leading to a five-day hearing before the Employment Relations Authority in April 2025. The authority determined that while Mowat hadn’t been unjustly dismissed, the school board failed to adequately address her concerns about being wrongly blamed for actions she didn’t commit.
The dispute centered around a series of anonymous letters sent to the board in 2017 and 2018, which were critical of Hill. Hill informed the board he suspected Mowat authored the letters, citing past conflicts and similarities in language, content, and handwriting. However, an independent investigation couldn’t definitively identify the author.
Mowat maintained that the board’s handling of the situation made her employment untenable. Lucia Vincent, an authority member, stated in a determination released this week that Mowat was unjustifiably disadvantaged when the board indicated it wouldn’t revisit issues it believed were already addressed during the letter investigation.
“This approach unjustifiably disadvantaged Mrs. Mowat, who felt unheard and her concerns minimized by the board during a vulnerable time following the investigations,” Vincent wrote. “It was not consistent with the duty of good faith that required a more active, constructive, responsive and communicative approach. Nor was it what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time.”
Vincent clarified that there was no evidence the “shutdown approach” was intended to force Mowat’s resignation, and the breach of duty wasn’t severe enough to warrant a finding of unjustifiable dismissal.
The authority dismissed Mowat’s claims of unjustifiable disadvantage related to the board chair’s comments alleging harassment, alterations to board meeting minutes, and concerns about mediation.
In light of the personal grievance, the authority awarded Mowat $25,000 to compensate for the physical and mental symptoms she experienced during her final years at Christchurch Boys’.
Responses from School and Teacher
Mowat stated the determination affirmed she had been unjustifiably disadvantaged following the investigation into the anonymous letters sent to the Board of Trustees in 2017 and 2018.
Kathryn Dalziel, Mowat’s lawyer, said that for at least a year, Mowat had voiced legitimate concerns about unfair treatment, inaccurate assumptions about her conduct, mishandling of information, and the board’s unwillingness to engage with her issues.
Dalziel added that the employment authority confirmed the board adopted a “shutdown approach” that was unfair, unreasonable, and violated its duty of good faith.
“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. Suz is relieved that the authority has acknowledged the harm caused and has awarded compensation accordingly,” Dalziel said.
She expressed hope that the decision would prompt Christchurch Boys’—and all schools—to carefully consider their responsibilities as employers, especially during conflicts or complaints, and to maintain thorough and accurate records.
“No employee should experience what Susan went through simply for raising concerns in good faith.”
Emily Flaszynski, board chair, stated the board was pleased with the employment authority’s findings and the resolution of the long-running matter. She noted the authority identified only a single procedural issue—the board’s inadequate response to Mowat’s concerns—and expressed satisfaction that no other negative findings were made regarding Mowat’s treatment or Hill’s conduct.
Flaszynski affirmed the board’s commitment to the wellbeing of its staff and students and to fair and respectful employment practices. She also acknowledged Hill’s dignity and leadership.
