NOTE: MsMenzies is now living in New Zealand which is 13 hours ahead of the time inBritain. She can be contacted by telephone before 11 am British time each day.Her phone number is 0064 33818138.
A classroom teacher who was so bullied andharassed by her head teacher that she developed a phobic disorder anddepressive illness has won 86,487 in damages plus costs in what is believed tobe the first case of its kind.
Judge Brian Knight said the headteacherstreatment of the teacher, Ms Margaret Menzies, 58, amounted to bullying,harassment and an unacceptable way of discharging her professional duties.
He said that the head, Valerie Hughes, hadconsiderable difficulty controlling her feelings and acting appropriately. Hepointed to an atmosphere of paranoia, threat and negative criticism in theschool.
The judge said: Staff morale was low andValerie Hughes was unapproachable, unfair in her dealings with the claimant andrude, aggressive and intimidatory in her dealings with the claimant, somechildren and parents. She resigned from the school in July 2001.
The judge was also critical of the localauthoritys senior primary schools inspector and advisor David Burns who thoughinformed of what was happening to Ms Menzies and its impact on her health,failed to treat the matter sufficiently seriously. No steps were taken toprotect the teacher other than to ask if she would like a transfer to anotherschool.
Ms Menzies said I suffered from the drip,drip effect of undermining, intimidating and unfair treatment. There wasnt asingle big event but continuing dismissal of me as a professional. Constantcriticism of me behind my back. My every move was wrong in her eyes. She wantedme to leave as 15 other people had in four years.
I got to the stage where I couldnt sleepand I was losing weight. I was anxious and exhausted and would freeze at thethought of going into school. Sometimes when I went home in the evenings, Iwould go to bed immediately and stay there. It was the only place I felt safe.I still cant visit a school even though I am no longer teaching. I lovedteaching. I never imagined this would happened to me. But four years of beingtreated as useless, of being shouted at and accused of lack of professionalismhave taken their toll.
Doug McAvoy, NUT General Secretary, said:The courts decision and the size of the award is a clear and strong messageto local authorities and senior managers in our schools. Bullying and intimidation of members of theNUT will not be tolerated. Ms Menzies was harassed and undermined in aconcerted campaign by a headteacher. She was given no support by her local authoritywhich ignored what was patently a deteriorating state of affairs at the schoolfor both staff and pupils.
Ms Menzies started work at ChalgrovePrimary School in Barnet in 1988. Her responsibilities included being a classteacher, English co-ordinator, premises manager and a teacher governor. Theschool was regarded as happy and successful by parents and teachers prior tothe appointment of Valerie Hughes as headteacher in 1997.
By 1999, David Burns regarded the school asat risk. A year later it was described as a cause for concern because ofthe poor relationships within the staff and poor leadership and management.
Within a year of the new headsappointment, the NUT was called as staff wanted to express their concern aboutthe way Mrs Hughes ran the school and treated the staff. In evidence, one teacher said that theschool was in disarray and that staff were extremely tense and frightenedand that Margaret Menzies was the main focus of this behaviour.
A second teacher wrote to David Burnsgiving her reasons for leaving the school which included the headteachersintimidatory treatment of her teacher colleagues. Another was advised by hisdoctor to take four weeks off due to stress at work.
By November 2000, only two teachers hadbeen at the school for longer than a term. Notes made by David Burns during areview of the school said: teachers threatened not allowed to talk to anymembers of staff demoralized harassed. Aggressive management style threatening. Teacher not allowed to have day off for scan. Bullying styleblameculture from headteacher.
The teacher having the scan was MargaretMenzies
The report pointed to low staff morale, anda high rate of staff turnover and absence; that this was having an effect onthe school which if inspected by OFSTED was at high risk of being identified ashaving serious weakness or possibly requiring special measures.
By February 2001 David Burns decided afurther review was needed and questionnaires were sent to parents. One letterepitomized the responses: Parents were publicly humiliated, privatecorrespondence quoted and parents forced to endure public haranguing.
In April, the vast majority of staff werewarning that they would leave the school at the end of the term if theheadteacher remained in post.
In evidence, Ms Menzies described thestressful atmosphere in the school and the lack of team spirit. She describedthe rude and dismissive attitude the headteacher displayed towards her, takingevery opportunity to demean and humiliate her. This undermined her position inthe school, destroyed her confidence and eventually inflicted psychiatricillness. She ended up going on long term sick leave in January 2001 and wasgranted retirement on health grounds in September.
In evidence, other teachers said that MsMenzies was being picked on by the head and that the treatment was having a badeffect on her health. It was pitiful to see a person of such exemplaryprofessionalism, who I actually looked upon as a role model, falling apart,another teacher at the school told the court.
By contrast, the judge said that Ms Hugheswas unwilling to accept she could make a mistake and was prepared to impose herwill and authority on any situation or person almost regardless of theconsequences. I believe that it was important for her to demonstrate that shewas right and she was prepared when necessary to use whatever means wereavailable to her to back up her decision.
Her admission that she was known to loseher cool was consistent with the complaints of parents about her treatment ofthem, which I believe extended to her treatment of teaching staff , inparticular the claimant. Whether she was aware of these faults is hard to say.
The judge detailed what he described as acampaign waged by the headteacher. Ms Menzies was accused of using negative andstrong language about the head to other staff with a written record of theincident going on the teachers file. Afurther cause for complaint from the headteacher concerned a boy writing on hisartwork wee poo which the head said showed a dereliction of duty by MsMenzies. Again Ms Menzies was threatened with disciplinary action.
On the morning Ms Menzies was due to have ascan at 1 pm, she was required to drink three pints of water before 11 am whichwould have caused distracting discomfort. Nonetheless, the headteacher insistedthat Ms Menzies attend a training morning. Despite a letter from her doctorsupporting her decision not to attend school before the scan, Ms Menziesreceived a letter from the headteacher warning her that any future occurrences of a similar nature will beconsidered serious and will be treated accordingly.
Mrs Hughes accused Ms Menzies ofunprofessional conduct. Ms Menzies alone among the teachers was required tosign off duty when she was leaving school at the end of the day. The head atfirst delayed and then in May 2001 refused to endorse Ms Menzies application togain performance related pay citing lack of any evidence to support theapplication as her reason for not endorsing the application. Ms Menzies hadbeen on sick leave since January that year.
In addition, evidence showed that theheadteacher removed Ms Menzies from her position as premises manager withoutany explanation. She insisted the teacher gain her prior approval before raisingany matters at governors meetings. Mrs Hughes ignored Ms Menzies and treatedher impatiently and dismissively at staff meetings.
E N D pr88.03
For further information contact OliveForsythe on 01502 478521