You Make the Call
This instalment of You Make the Call features a teacher who didn’t feel supported in a dispute with a student’s mother.
The worker was a teacher at a private school in Hamilton, Ont., starting in 2007. She taught English and other related subjects.
At the beginning of the 2013/2014 school year, the worker was told that the mother of a student had expressed concern that the worker would be the student’s teacher in two classes. The mother complained about a mark the worker had given the student the previous year which the mother felt was too low.
On Oct. 18, 2013, the worker gave the student 76 per cent on an assignment. The student behaved rudely when she received the mark and requested a meeting to discuss it. The worker agreed to meet with her the following week, but later learned the student’s mother was planning to attend. The worker told the student it wouldn’t be appropriate for her mother to attend and, given the past complaints, advised the head of the student success centre and the head of the English department about it. The heads agreed she should schedule a parent-teacher interview, but only the student should attend the afternoon meeting.
However, the mother attended the meeting and, before the worker had a chance to discuss the assignment, the mother yelled at her, accusing the worker of mistreating and attacking her daughter in class. The worker suggested the mother speak with the head of student success and they stormed out.
The worker informed the principal about the altercation and the principal met with the parents on Oct. 30 without inviting the worker.
The principal decided to have two assignments marked by another teacher as a response to allegations that the worker was biased, but he didn’t ask for apologies for how the student or parents had acted. The other teacher marked the assignments and agreed with the marks the worker had given. The parents weren’t satisfied, however, and asked that the student’s later assignments be marked by another teacher.
The principal acknowledged there was no bias to the worker’s marking. He also admitted the worker should have been part of the meeting with the parents but didn't believe her credibility and integrity had been undermined.
The worker gave the student a mark lower than the class average on a November assignment and the student’s father requested a meeting. The worker informed the school, wanting to defer it to the department head or principal. The principal replied that he didn’t want to be a go-between for the worker and her students and the worker should handle communication with the student and her family.
The worker felt bullied, that her employment was in jeopardy, and thought the principal would discipline her if she contacted him again. Over the Christmas holidays, she sent a letter to the principal saying that she had been constructively dismissed because the school hadn’t protected her from harassment and her job duties were undermined.
You Make the Call
Did the teacher quit her employment?
OR
Was the teacher constructively dismissed?
If you said the teacher quit her job, you’re right. The court found that the altercation between the worker and the student’s mother was “undoubtedly upsetting to all concerned” and the mother’s conduct was “totally unacceptable.” However, the worker didn’t file an official report under the school’s harassment policy and there was no indication the school had a policy about parent-teacher meetings. As a result, though the school didn’t try to prevent the mother from attending the initial meeting with the student, there was no evidence to indicate a term of the worker’s employment had been changed or ignored, said the court.
The court noted that the principal had good reasons for not inviting the worker to the follow-up meeting with the student’s parents — it was quickly arranged and the principal didn’t have much time in which to fit it. In addition, it probably wouldn’t have been productive to have the worker and the mother to meet so soon after the altercation, said the court.
The court also found that the re-marking solution wasn’t intended to undermine the worker’s credibility or integrity, but rather to help defuse a volatile situation. In fact, when the worker’s mark was confirmed by the other teacher, the worker should have taken it as vindication rather than continuing to feel undermined, the court said.
As for the insistence of the parents to have later assignments re-marked, these were not part of the principal’s solution and were from “external forces that threatened the worker’s professional integrity,” not the school, said the court.
The court found that the principal had grown impatient with the conflict between the worker and the student’s parents and the worker felt unappreciated. However, these didn’t constitute fundamental changes to the worker’s employment or her workplace and the worker was not constructively dismissed.
“I conclude that a reasonable person with a dispassionate perspective would not view the teaching environment at (the school) to be untenable for the worker to continuing teaching there…,” said the court. “There were other options available to the worker short of resigning. These include seeking a teaching position at another school in the private or the public school system.”
For more information see:
• DeBon v. Hillfield Strathallan College, 2018 CarswellOnt 16202 (Ont. S.C.J.).
