0
Contact Us
New term, new rules: Employment law lessons for schools in 2026
What learnings can schools take from some recent employment law cases as the new school year begins?
Navigating employment issues in a school environment is uniquely challenging. Relationships are close, reputations matter, and communities watch closely. When employment issues arise, they can escalate quickly and have impacts well beyond the individuals involved.
Recent decisions from the employment jurisdiction provide timely guidance for schools heading into 2026. We’ve pulled together three significant decisions involving school employers. Each case provides learnings for Boards, principals, and senior leaders on managing tricky conflicts with fairness and in good faith.
Employee reinstated on interim basis following dismissal for ‘incompatibility’ and 37 personal grievances against school[1]
After more than 20 years at Mokoia Intermediate, Ms Du Fall (an executive officer) was dismissed for 'incompatibility' following a long period of conflict.
In September 2022, she raised concerns about pay and salary progression (some of which were resolved), but by 2023 the employment relationship had become increasingly strained. The parties attended two mediations in 2023 which were unsuccessful. Ms Du Fall then lodged proceedings in the Authority, while she remained employed, which contributed to a tense and difficult working environment.
Despite repeated offers of mediation or facilitation by the Board, the relationship continued to deteriorate. Ms Du Fall raised multiple personal grievances and briefly refused to perform her duties. By April 2025, the principal informed the Board that the relationship was fundamentally broken. The principal indicated their intention to resign, prompting the Board to commence an incompatibility process, and Ms Du Fall was dismissed in May 2025.
Over the course of the dispute, she raised a total of 37 personal grievances. Following her dismissal, Ms Du Fall claimed unjustified dismissal and sought interim reinstatement.
When deciding whether to reinstate Ms Du Fall, the Court considered the strong opposition from the senior leadership team to Ms Du Fall’s return. The principal and two deputy principals indicated they would resign if Ms Du Fall was reinstated, with one deputy principal saying they did not believe that Ms Du Fall’s complaints and allegations would ever end, and they would not feel safe if Ms Du Fall returned to work.
However, despite this opposition and the apparent severity of the relationship breakdown, the Court found there was a reasonably strong case to be tried regarding her claims and granted interim reinstatement. The Court held that the following factors favoured reinstatement:
- The previous lengthy period of employment, without significant difficulties (over 20 years of successful service with previous boards and principals), supported that permanent reinstatement was arguably reasonable.
- There was evidence Ms Du Fall had attempted to improve relationships prior to dismissal, finding that she had some insight into her actions and was now legally represented which should reduce the risk of reversion to the previous behaviour.
- While opposition among some colleagues remained, interim reinstatement could facilitate a smoother reintegration, reduce the risk of a prolonged absence complicating future reinstatement, and provide the school with confidence that relationships could be professionally restored.
The Court noted that professional support would likely be necessary to help rebuild working relationships, and that practical measures such as a staged return or remote work could assist in managing tensions, with Ms Du Fall also needing to carefully consider the impact of her actions on colleagues.
Employee unjustifiably disadvantaged due to Board’s failure to meaningfully engage with concerns raised by her[2]
Mrs Mowat was a long serving teacher at Christchurch Boys’ High School. Over time, her relationship with the Headmaster and Board deteriorated, culminating in a series of disputes during 2017–2018.
Central to the conflict was a set of anonymous letters critical of the Headmaster. The Headmaster believed Mrs Mowat was responsible for these letters, but an independent investigation could not determine who authored the letters. Mrs Mowat felt unfairly blamed for actions she did not commit. This situation led to Mrs Mowat raising concerns regarding the Board’s handling of complaints.
By December 2019, the deterioration of these professional relationships prompted Mrs Mowat to resign. Following her resignation, she filed personal grievance claims with the Authority, alleging both constructive dismissal and unjustified disadvantage claims.
The Authority assessed the claims and did not uphold the constructive dismissal allegation, nor three of the four unjustified disadvantage claims. Specifically, the Authority found:
- While a Board member had used ‘unhelpful’ language when describing Mrs Mowat’s repeated requests for information, this did not unjustifiably disadvantage her.
- Although there were some minor inconsistencies in meeting notes provided to Mrs Mowat, these did not reasonably indicate dishonesty or improper conduct by the school.
- The Board had not refused to resolve matters through mediation. Instead, it remained open to discussing outstanding concerns and participating in a facilitated process, but Mrs Mowat chose not to engage on the terms offered.
- While the Board had not adequately addressed Mrs Mowat’s concerns, there was insufficient evidence that the Board’s approach was intended to force her resignation, and the breach of duty was not serious enough to make resignation foreseeable.
Nonetheless, one unjustified disadvantage claim was upheld. This related to concerns Mrs Mowat raised about perceived flaws in the Board’s conduct during the investigation into the anonymous letters, and a pattern in which the Headmaster appeared to blame her unfairly for conduct she had not engaged in. While the Board was entitled not to reopen or revisit the original investigation, the Authority found that this was not what Mrs Mowat was seeking. Her concerns were directed at the Headmaster’s treatment of her and the Board’s handling of her complaints during and after the investigation.
Addressing those issues did not require the investigation findings to be revisited but did require the Board to engage constructively and in good faith with her concerns, which may have included some sort of mediated assistance. The Authority emphasised that employers must engage meaningfully with employee concerns, even where they consider issues have already been addressed. It therefore awarded Mrs Mowat $25,000 in compensation.
Employee reinstated on interim basis due to ‘strong case’ of flawed investigation and findings relating to alleged misuse of fundraising money[3]
LGY, a deputy principal, was dismissed by her school for alleged serious misconduct relating to school funds and a Year 8 Wellington Camp. The Board’s concerns related to claims that LGY had used fundraising money to pay for family members’ trips and WOW tickets without proper authorisation. The Board alleged this raised potential questions of financial impropriety and misuse of school funds.
LGY challenged her dismissal and the Authority found (on an interim basis) that there was a strong case that the dismissal was unjustified, based on the following key factors:
- The investigation into LGY was compromised by conflicts of interest, as the Board Chair who made the complaint was on the subcommittee investigating the complaint, and other members of the subcommittee had prior involvement in camp fundraising and activities (giving them prior knowledge that could affect impartiality). Additionally, LGY had asserted that there was no applicable policy or process relating to the handling of funds (a responsibility that ultimately rested with the Board – who were investigating the complaint).
- The investigation process itself was flawed. Allegations against LGY shifted during the process and were never clearly articulated to her. Interviews with witnesses were incomplete, and there were inconsistencies between preliminary findings and the final decision.
- It was arguable that a fair and reasonable employer could not have concluded that LGY’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct or justified dismissal. While LGY made errors in recognising conflicts of interest and following expense procedures, her explanations were accepted as honest, and the real issues were failures to seek authorisation and comply with process, not misuse of funds for personal gain.
The question of reinstatement was complex due to damaged relationships between LGY and the principal, the Board Chair, the Board, and the wider school community resulting from the disciplinary process. While these tensions posed challenges for reintegration, the Authority emphasised that LGY had a right to challenge the disciplinary process and dismissal, and that reinstatement is the primary remedy, even if returning to the workplace might be difficult. Mediation, facilitation, and restorative practices were identified as potential tools to repair relationships and manage tensions.
Some staff expressed concerns about LGY returning, citing previous difficulties with her behaviour. The Authority noted these concerns were new, unrelated to the original allegations, and had not been independently verified, finding no evidence that they would create problems if she were reinstated. The Authority also observed that delaying reinstatement would make integration more difficult, particularly as the Board planned to appoint a new deputy principal at the start of the 2026 school year.
The Board argued that LGY could not be trusted to manage school funds or comply with policy, making reinstatement inappropriate. The Authority found these concerns to be overstated, noting that LGY had acted in line with her understanding of her mandate and accepted practices at the time, without knowledge of any contrary policy. She now acknowledged that any decisions involving personal benefit would require independent authorisation.
Considering all factors, the Authority concluded that, despite the practical difficulties and damaged relationships, interim reinstatement was appropriate given the strength of LGY’s claims and the risks of delaying her return. The Authority emphasised the need for professional support to restore working relationships and directed LGY to fully cooperate with such measures. The Board has indicated its intention to appeal the decision.
What do these cases tell us?
Taken together, these decisions provide some timely and practical insights for schools navigating employment issues:
Relationships require constructive engagement: The Authority and Court continue to emphasise the need to engage proactively and constructively with employee concerns, even where school leaders may disagree with the issues raised. This can include mediation, facilitated discussions, restorative practice, or external support. The Mowat decision shows that weight is placed on how concerns are addressed, including tone, openness, and willingness to engage, where employee issues are raised.
Context and tenure matter: Where an employee has worked successfully in a school for many years, the Authority/Court will generally expect more from an employer in relation to the restoration of a relationship that has broken down.
Workplace tension not a barrier to reinstatement: Reinstatement is the primary remedy where sought, even if this would cause real tension or practical challenges in the school environment. Threats of resignation by other staff is increasingly not seen as being a persuasive argument against reinstatement.
The right process is key: The LGY decision is a reminder that failures in investigation, consultation, or procedural fairness can undermine outcomes entirely. Proper process, an open mind, and meaningful opportunities for employees to respond are critical risk management tools. Du Fall further illustrates the difficulty of pursuing incompatibility dismissals, which carry a high threshold and require strong, objective evidence that the relationship is truly irreparable.
In considering the learnings from these cases, schools should bear in mind that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is set to pass into law early this year.[4] Relevantly, the Bill will prevent the Authority or Court from providing an employee with reinstatement or compensation in circumstances where they contributed to the situation that gave rise to the personal grievance. Therefore, it is possible that cases such as those outlined above would be decided differently once the new law is in force.
Get in touch
If you have any questions about this article, please get in touch with one of our experts.
[1] Du Fall v Mokoia Intermediate School Board [2025] NZEmpC 258.
[2] Mowat v Christchurch Boys’ High School Board [2025] NZERA 855.
[3] LGY v The Board of Trustees [2025] NZERA 809.
[4] See further information here: Simpson Grierson - Employment Relations Bill overhaul unveiled - largest shake up in decades Simpson Grierson - Significant shake up to New Zealand’s employment law landscape set to proceed in the New Year
