Equal Opportunity Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION: Crook -V- Department Of Education And Training [1998] NSWEOT COMPLAINANT: Crook RESPONDENT: Department of Education and Training NUMBER: 49 of 1997 Ms P O'Shane ( Judicial Member ) TRIBUNAL: Mr O McDonald Ms S Clayton GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT: DATES OF HEARING: 02/18/1998; 02/19/1998; 02/20/1998; 02/23/1998; 02/24/1998; 02/25/1998; 02/26/1998; 02/27/1998; 03/31/1998; 04/28/1998; 04/29/1998 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/25/1998 Complainant: Self-Represented LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Crown Solicitor's Office Counsel - Ms C Ronalds JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF: Respondent The Complainant in this matter was a teacher, who was employed by the then Department of School Education [DSE] on a casual basis, whose position with the DSE was not confirmed on the alleged basis of inefficiency and unsuitability. The Complainant initiated this action on the grounds that he was discriminated against by the DSE and its officers, on the basis of his homosexuality. Part 4C of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 sets out the law with respect to Discrimination on the Ground of Homosexuality. Section 49ZG defines what constitutes discrimination on the ground of homosexuality: (1) A person ( the perpetrator ) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person ) on the ground of homosexuality if, on the ground of the aggrieved person's homosexuality or the homosexuality of a relative or associate of the aggrieved person, the perpetrator: (a) treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same circumstances, or in circumstances which are not materially different, the perpetrator treats or would treat a person who he or she did not think was a homosexual person or who does not have such a relative or associate who he or she thinks was a homosexual person, or (b) requires the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition with which a substantially higher proportion of persons who are not homosexual persons, or who do not have such a relative or associate who is a homosexual person, comply or are able to comply, being a requirement which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case and with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to comply. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), something is done on the ground of a person's homosexuality if it is done on the ground of the person's homosexuality, a characteristic that appertains generally to homosexual persons or a characteristic that is generally imputed to homosexual persons. Section 49ZH defines discrimination against applicants and employees in the following terms: (1) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of homosexuality: (a) in the arrangements the employer makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment, (b) in determining who should be offered employment, or (c) in the terms on which the employer offers employment. (2) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the ground of homosexuality: (a) in the terms oar conditions of employment which the employer affords the employee, (b) by denying the employee access, or limiting the employee's access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits associated with employment, or (c) by dismissing the employee or subjecting the employee to any other detriment. Complaint was first made to the Anti-Discrimination [ADB] board on 28 August 1996, alleging discrimination on a continuing basis on the part of the DSE since September 1993. He stated that he had not made any earlier complaint because he believed that the structures, policies and codes of practice of the DSE and the NSW Teachers' Federation would ensure that he would be treated fairly and properly. However, there is nothing in the documentation placed before the Tribunal which indicates that Mr Crook made any complaints of any nature to any of the DSE authorities (including principals, head teachers, personnel directors, or the like) or the NSW Teachers' Federation, regarding his present allegations of discrimination on the grounds of his homosexuality, prior to his complaint to the ADB. Unfortunately, the Complainant does not identify which part of the sections he relies upon to ground his complaint. On the 4 November 1996 the ADB informed the DSE of the allegations. On 19 December 1996 the DSE responded to the allegations, denying that it had discriminated against the complainant. It advised that it had interviewed most of the people who had been named by the complainant as having behaved in a discriminatory manner towards him, stating that those persons either denied the allegations entirely, or if agreeing to the behaviour described, gave a different interpretation than had been given by the complainant. A conciliation conference held on 24 March 1997 failed to resolve the matter, and on the 25 March 1997 the complainant requested that the President ADB refer the matter tot the Equal Opportunity Tribunal [EOT]. In his letter to the ADB of the 28.8.96, the complainant wrote that on 26.7.96 he was issued with documentation from the DSE which stated that he would be determined as ineffective as a teacher as of 26.8.96. His complaint went on to state the following matters: in September 1993 he was refused listing for permanent employment with the DSE because of his 'gestures' and 'voice'; in December he was offered a permanent position in a country school, the principal of which advised him against accepting the position because he was homosexual; his probationary period was formally extended to December 1996, and he was transferred to a Sydney school where he took up service in January 1997. There he alleges that he received hostile treatment from the Head of English, motivated, he believed, by homophobic attitudes; he lodged a grievance against that teacher, and alleges that he was removed from the school in less than 48 hours after lodging of the grievance; he was instructed not to return to school until he had undergone a HealthQuest medical examination; contrary to HealthQuest recommendations for 'mediation', he alleges, he was then placed at another nearby school where he was a supernumerary; there he experienced further hostile treatment from the Head of English, about which he complained within 2 weeks, and was immediately removed from the school without the grievance being resolved; he was then instructed to report for work at the DSE where he was directed to perform clerical duties for two weeks; whilst in that office he was threatened by the acting Personnel director that his position would be annulled, and he be sent for further psychiatric examination if he didn't resign. At the time of writing his complaint, he was seeing a psychiatrist. The grievances that were notified, it should be noted, were not lodged on the grounds of any perception on his part that he was being subjected to discrimination on the grounds of his homosexuality, but rather related to matters of discipline, and related behaviour. It is not insignificant to note that prior to his lodging his complaints with the ADB he was advised by letter dated 26.7.96 from the Director, Metropolitan North Region, DSE, that two school principals had reported that as a teacher, his efficiency be determined as not satisfying requirements for the position held. The letter further informed him that his efficiency would be determined on 26 August 1996 as not satisfying requirements for position held. He was then advised of his right to reconsideration. The matter having been referred to the EOT, the complainant was asked to detail those matters which he alleged amounted to discrimination, and victimisation as he subsequently alleged. He stated: In respect of his interview for employment, September 1993, that he was unsuccessful because of his voice and gestures. He went on to write: "I believe the only distinguishing features of these is that they are 'camp'. In respect of his placement in a country school, December 1994, that when he informed the principal he was gay, he was told not to accept the appointment. In respect of a report of unsatisfactory performance, July 1995, he was told by the principal 'I told you not to come here in the first place. ... You didn't do what I said, now you can take what you get.' He also wrote that there was absolutely no evidence to fail him on his teaching certificate. In respect of hostile treatment, 1995, he wrote that the teacher KR * yelled at him several times * snatched things from him * publicly yelled at him * cut him off whenever he talked * on 5 occasions did not turn up for playground duty, thus causing the complainant to miss his lunch * in August 1995, told him he should listen to KR, and that he should not flaunt what he was to all and sundry. In respect of his placement at a Sydney school, December 1995, he wrote that a teacher, HS, advised him, upon his informing HS that he was gay, that the school was in the "bible belt" and asked if he would be happy. HS then later in the conversation informed him that HS was not entirely happy with his appointment. In respect of hostile treatment, February 1995, at the Sydney school he wrote that two teachers, HS and JG * came to his desk several occasions, interrupting his work and demanding to lesson preparation * spoke to him in negative and hostile manners * cut him off from discussions * HS called him to the office harassing him about his negative talk about HS and JG * JG abused him for having brought a problem to attention * kept secret dossiers on him . He detailed [isolated] instances of some teachers using various terms in the course of discussions, including "closet gays", "nothing straight about him", and descriptions of the complainant's behaviour such as "hysterical giggle", "unnatural response", and comments about his "lifestyle". He detailed his being sent for psychiatric assessment as indicating victimisation in response to his notification of grievances. Attached to his points of claim there were several documents which taken together give a very detailed account of the various incidents involving the Complainant at the schools to which he was appointed in the period after his initial interview. Those documents reveal that several reports were made by various persons within the DSE in their capacities as either interviewers, school principals, head teachers, or personnel directors about the Complainant's abilities and performances as a teacher. Without exception they indicated that his attitude to fellow teachers and students was poor; that he was not amenable to suggestion; that he failed to make out logs and lesson preparation; that he was frequently late or absent for classes; unprepared for classes; spoke and gestured inappropriately to students, to parents and other to staff, including yelling and using inappropriate language, as well as raising matters in inappropriate circumstances, and so on. The documents also reveal that when he was posted to School #1 he was allocated to a supervisor (a senior teacher) and given a programme of assistance, a situation arrived at after lengthy meetings involving not only himself, the principal and the head teacher at School #1, but also senior departmental officers, and NSWTF officers. The documents reveal that a similar procedure was attempted at School #2, and similar problems arose there as had arisen at School #1. The documents also reveal a person who was demanding, disruptive, and self-centred in his dealings with other staff; and there are many frank comments to the effect that he was not well-liked by his colleagues. One of the documents attached to his points of claim was his response to the DSE when he was advised that he had the right to reconsideration of the DSE's decision not to employ him. That document is lengthy, verbose, poorly structured, and extremely abusive in terms. Throughout the document the Complainant is demanding, but otherwise does not deal directly with complaints detailed by those who had made written assessments of the Complainant as being inefficient and unsuited for the position of teacher. It is clear that the DSE received that document, and by reply dated 9.9.96, Mr John Fox, Director, Metropolitan North Region, advised the Complainant that he would recommend that the Complainant's appointment as a teacher be annulled and that he cease to be a member of the NSW Teaching Service. The Respondent denied all allegations made by the Complainant, and advised that in regard to incidents which it agreed occurred, those were not based on discrimination on the basis of the Complainant's homosexuality. When asked to respond to the Respondent's reply, the Complainant wrote to the ADB that he would not provide either the ADB or the DSE with further information, and then set down a number of demands, including wanting assurances that the proceedings "be recorded accurately as per standard minutes or on tape", that he be able to read and sign minutes. On 25 August 1997 filed his points of claim, a document of some 19 pages and 54 paragraphs, in which he stated: "1. The Complainant is man [sic] who was employed by the First Respondent as a Secondary School Teacher in a full-time permanent capacity from 29 January 1995 until 4 April 1997, when Mr Paul Irving, DSE Personnel Director and directly answerable to the First Respondent, formally annulled the Complainant's employment. "2. The First Respondent is the Director General of the Department of School Education, being a legal entity of the Crown in the right of New South Wales which employed the Complainant as a Secondary School Teacher. "3. With the exception of the Twenty-First Respondent, The Current Minister of Education, all other Respondents were at all times material employees [sic] of the First Respondent." The Complaint then lists numerous un-named personnel, who were located in various schools and department offices both outside and within the Sydney Metropolitan area, including several principals, head teachers, departmental managers of personnel, and other officials of the DSE, in respect of whom the Complainant "alleges discriminated against him". There were several other allegations, all set out in general terms: "acted in a discriminatory manner towards the Complainant"; "harassed and tried to intimidate the Complainant and lied about the complainant's work performance"; "ignored established work procedures in regards to issues of employment concerning the Complainant, and discriminated against him"; "purposefully mismanaged The Complainant's employment and discriminated against The Complainant between May to June 1996 [sic]"; "were Discriminatory and who also The Complainant alleges acted personally in discriminating against The Complainant"; "that the ... Respondent discriminated against him though [as typed] maltreatment and mismanagement of the Complainant's health status and acted inappropriately on misinformation and stereotyping of the Complainant's sexuality/gender"; "ignored the Complaint's [as typed] request that matters concerning allegations of discrimination and maltreatment by the Complainant were purposefully [sic] ignored and who the Complainant thereby alleges abetted discrimination." There were several personnel of whom it was alleged "abetted discrimination". In respect of the Minister for School Education, the Complainant "[alleged] to have notified about the alleged discrimination and from whom The Complainant alleges to have received a letter from the said Respondent stating clearly his will to refuse an adequate investigation and/or responses to the Complainant's alleged reasonable questions as to alleged discrimination of The Complainant." The Complainant made reference to the Respondents' behaviour in terms such as "fictitious, false and slanderous principal reports"; "cold shoulder treatment"; "negative, unhelpful and rude"; "hostile"; "derogatory", but otherwise no specifics of those allegations were provided to the Respondent (nor to the Tribunal) prior to the hearing of this matter. Mr Crook further alleged: "The Respondents are jointly and severally liable for the unlawful acts of each respondent against the Complainant." He also alleged that he suffered pain, hurt, humiliation, distress, diagnosed anxiety disorder and depressive condition, suffering and injury to feelings as well as loss of income and other benefits, loss of career prospects, loss of opportunities to professionally develop [sic], loss of professional identity and loss as a result of ongoing professional psychological and other medical treatment; and accordingly claimed damages in the amount of $40000 together with costs and interest against each Respondent, as well as the following orders: that each Respondent formally apologise to the Complainant, that the First Respondent remove all adverse notations report on his [the Complainant's] personnel file; that the annulment of his employment be declared void ab initio; that the Complainant be reinstated; that he be issued with his Teaching Certificate; that the First Respondent cause an apology to be published in the Teaching Gazette. In his points of defence the Respondent Director-General of NSW Department of School Education it was contended that there was only one Respondent to the proceedings and that the other persons were not properly joined as respondents. On the 12.8.97 the Tribunal in a preliminary hearing allowed the joinder of the 21 further respondents indicated (but not named) in the Complainant's points of claim. The matter finally came on for hearing on 18 February 1998. At that time suppression orders were made by the Tribunal prohibiting the publication of the names of schools, of teachers, and of any evidence which might lead to the identification of same. The Complainant's evidence was that when he was given placement at School #1 he spoke by phone to the principal, BR. He told BR that he was gay, and hadn't lived in a country town previously. According to him, BR then told him not to "come down here". Although he did not specifically say so, the Tribunal takes the view that such evidence was put forward to support his allegation that BR discriminated against him on the basis of his homosexuality, as defined in s.49ZG. When he arrived at the school he was given a teaching load which included two subject areas in which he was not qualified to teach; and further, he stated, he was given some of the most difficult classes in the school to teach. His next evidence in respect of BR, KR, and School #1 was that BR and KR frequently invited other persons to their house, but the Complainant was never invited. The Complainant went on to say, "he did not do anything that was at all sociable or nice over that period [end February to 21 July 1995]." Furthermore, he said, those persons would pass him in the street and not acknowledge him. In particular the Complainant gave evidence that an incident arose when KR made a face at him, and sneered at him. There were no further details about that incident. Thereafter, the Complainant told the Tribunal, open hostility began, in that, whereas previous to 21 July 1995 other teachers would converse with him in the common room, then he was not responded to when he tried to engage in conversation or small talk. In particular he told the Tribunal that BR cold-shouldered him after that date. Once again, the Tribunal assumes that that is put forward as evidence of discrimination on the part of BR against the Complainant on the grounds of homosexuality. As to his relationship with his supervisor, he stated that only once did she meet with him, prior to BR informing him, on 21 July 1995, that he was deemed to be a failure. The Complainant described the event which occurred on 21.7.95 in terms of his having gone to the office of BR and saying words to the effect: "How am I ... I would just like some feedback on it, you know, on me as a teacher..." to which he alleged BR replied: "It's too late, you've already failed". That was perceived as viciousness on the part of BR, and a personal attack on the Complainant, as he related it to the Tribunal. In relating his evidence of having been given a programme of assistance at School #1 he stated that subject to amendments which he sought, he considered that the programme was "okay", although he did not consider the fact that he was going on it was quite reasonable at all. Although he did not specifically relate his being placed on a programme of assistance as being discrimination in employment, as provided in s.49ZH, the Tribunal assumed that it was on that basis that the evidence was put before the Tribunal. He told the Tribunal that after he was placed on the programme of assistance the discriminatory behaviour from KR and BR (and others whom he included) began to get worse in that those persons began to abuse him more openly. When asked to clarify what that abuse was he instanced an occasion when he says that KR came along when he was reading a newspaper and KR snatched it out of his hand. Another incident of abuse was when KR took him aside and commented on his clothing, especially the fact that he wore his shirts loose and not tucked into his trousers. He said that she made the comment at that time, "You shouldn't flaunt what you are to all and sundry". The Complainant then went on to detail further hostility which he alleged he encountered from other staff members. In particular he told the Tribunal of an incident in which teacher EO wrote a statement about an incident involving a student whom he was alleged to have said he hated. He considered that incident to be one of harassment. Further evidence which he presented to the Tribunal is that his supervising teacher failed to give him positive feedback about his teaching, which he says another probationary teacher was given. Again, whilst there is no specific reference to the sections, the Tribunal assumed that the evidence went to s.49ZH issues. Some time later in the year he suffered a home invasion, after which he was informed by the school principal that he could arrange a compassionate transfer for the Complainant. That in fact was done, but subsequently the complainant advised that he would not move from the school until after the HSC. The following year he took up the compassionate transfer with School #2. There again his evidence was that he was subjected to similar treatment. In particular he detailed an incident involving a student and another teacher, where he took the student to the office of JG, and demanded that she rectify the student's problem. She took exception to the Complainant's behaviour, on his account, yelling at him, and he then informed her that in the circumstances he was lodging a grievance against her, and did not wish to have any communication with her except in writing. He told the Tribunal that prior to the incident, JG had approached him aggressively and asked for his log book on two occasions. He stated that he did not see her behave in that manner with any other persons, and again, whilst he does not specifically relate it to the provisions of s.49ZH, the Tribunal is of the view that that is the basis for the evidence being presented. Further evidence he gave of the attitudes of other teachers towards him was hearsay that was related to him by yet others, on his account. His evidence went on to relate that a meeting was convened at which there were several persons present, including NSWTF representative, departmental representatives, the principal, a couple of head teachers, and himself. The subject matter of that meeting, on his account, was his manner towards other staff. The minutes of that meeting indicate that in the course of discussions, the complainant was "hysterically giggling". Afterwards he was handed a notice informing him that he was not to return to the school until he had been medically assessed by HealthQuest because of concerns about his behaviour and well-being. Again, whilst he did not relate that specifically to the provisions of s.49ZG or ZH, the Tribunal is of the view that that evidence was presented to show that the authorities were in breach of those provisions. The Complainant left the school, and in fact underwent psychiatric assessment. Upon examination it was found that he was not suffering a mental illness or condition, and there was nothing to show that he was medically unfit to teach. However, the examining medical officer did comment that his fitness to teach on professional grounds was a different matter which was to be assessed by other persons. The complainant was subsequently off work from 30 March to 5 May 1997. Under rigorous and sustained cross-examination, the complainant agreed that in respect of several of his allegations there was nothing in his evidence which suggested, let alone stated, that the actions of various persons, which he had described could be attributed by him to having been done on the grounds of his homosexuality. Having heard that cross-examination and his responses thereto, after his evidence in chief which was couched entirely in general terms, the Tribunal accepted the Respondents' submission to find that the complaints had not been established in relation to several of the named persons and those matters were dismissed. At the same time though, the Tribunal formed the view that there was a case to answer on the part of BR, KR, and HW, particularly on the issue of whether the Complainant was treated differently than others in a similar position by those persons when they required him to undergo psychiatric assessment in particular. The Court then heard evidence from the Respondent Witnesses, the first of whom was TW, a teacher and executive team member responsible in part for overseeing the running of the school, looking after staff and managing curriculum, at School #1. His evidence was that all of the staff at the School had initially been friendly and helpful towards the Complainant, but that in the second half of the Complainant's first year there, "The staff changed as a result of the awful conflict which David Crook brought into our school. In my opinion ... I felt that David derived enjoyment from conflict with other staff members and from conflict with students." TW went on in response to examination in chief, and subsequently in response to cross-examination to detail many instances of what was clearly inappropriate, difficult, and hostile behaviour on the part of the Complainant towards the School Principal, other senior teachers, and students. In cross-examination of the witness, TW, the Complainant failed to put any of the matters which he alleged against those members of staff, and in particular, the School Principal, BR, and in so far as there are any complaints against TW, those are dismissed. The evidence in chief and cross-examination of EG was similar in content, and in the manner of presentation. Once again, EG gave details, although to a much lesser extent than did TW, of instances when the Complainant's behaviour was inappropriate for a teacher in his position and circumstances. Once again, too, there was nothing put to her in cross-examination which addressed the substance of the allegations made by the Complainant, especially in regard to the School Principal, BR. EG herself denied, in examination in chief, that she had discriminated against the Complainant. It was not put to her at any stage in cross-examination that she had behaved in a discriminatory way towards him on the grounds of his homosexuality. Once again, the evidence and cross-examination of SM confirmed the evidence of the earlier Respondent witnesses, although there was nothing in his evidence which suggested that he had had any contact with those other witnesses in the intervening years, he having left the particular school to teach in another education system. He was not himself cross-examined about any behaviour on his part which was discriminatory of the Complainant on the grounds of homosexuality. The next Respondent witness to give evidence in the proceedings was HW, the Principal of School #2. He told the Tribunal that apart from having two concerns about the Complainant shortly after the Complainant first arrived at the School which related to the Complainant's inability to accept supervision, direction, and lawful instruction from his supervisors, and his lack of lesson preparation, he told the Court that he had sought an independent assessment of the Complainant on the basis of the Complainant's behaviour. Apparently that led to the Complainant undertaking a HealthQuest examination and psychiatric and psychological assessments. However, HW was at no time cross-examined about that action on his part insofar as he might have been or was motivated to do so on the basis of discrimination against the Complainant on the grounds of homosexuality. The Principal of School #1 was the next Respondent witness. He recounted to the Tribunal how he had first come into contact with the Complainant. At the time he was Principal of School #1. He denied in evidence in chief that he had at any time discriminated against the Complainant on the grounds of homosexuality. BR first became aware of the Complainant's homosexuality, when the Complainant mentioned it in the course of his first telephone conversation with BR. He went on to recount that he and other staff at the school "went out of [their] way to make [Complainant] feel welcome." However, he went on to tell the Tribunal, "after the first two terms ... David started to operate in a manner that actually started to fragment the team." From that time on the Complainant's behaviour and performance as a teacher were under scrutiny, as there had apparently been many concerned raised by other teaching staff, pupils and parents. BR together with other senior staff teachers and the Complainant himself, developed and implemented a "development programme" designed to "improve his classroom management, his interaction with the teachers, his interaction with the students, his lesson preparation, and general teaching technique." When asked about his conversation with the Complainant on the question of recommending his Teaching Certificate, BR told the Tribunal that he had informed the Complainant that he had decided to extend his probation for another 12 months to give him ample opportunity to prove that he had the qualities to become a teacher. He also told the Tribunal of an incident in which the Complainant had been the victim of a "home invasion", which naturally enough was exceedingly distressing to the Complainant, and in relation to which BR attended at the Complainant's home to give him support and other assistance. The following day, when the Complainant was still in a state of considerable agitation over the events of the previous evening, BR, in response to assertions by the Complainant that he would not feel safe continuing in the School and the community, suggested that he, BR, would be able to organise a compassionate transfer for the Complainant. Apparently the Complainant decided to take up that option, but subsequently reversed his decision about that matter, leaving BR, as he put it, "confused", because there was a job for the Complainant to go to. Apart from those matters, in relation to which the Complainant at no time put to the witness that there was any link between the Complainant's inefficiency as a teacher, or his fear of further aggression from the alleged "home invaders", and the Complainant's homosexuality, there was no cross-examination put to the witness which addressed any of the issues that had been set out in his voluminous complaint, and which had been put before the Tribunal. In the event, BR was visibly very distressed by the experience, the more so it seemed to the Tribunal by reason of the fact that the whole difficult exercise seemed to have taken place for no good reason. In the light of that evidence the complaints sofar as they relate to BR are dismissed. The evidence given by the second Respondent witness, KR, was in similar terms. When asked about specific allegations made by the Complainant, she denied having behaved or spoken in the ways complained of, and in particular denied that she had ever discriminated against the Complainant on the grounds of homosexuality. The cross-examination of KR was at no time addressed to the substance of the complaints made in relation to this particular witness, except that she was asked two questions, "You found Mr Crook's homosexuality a problem for you, didn't you...?" and, "You never asked about his homosexuality in any way, did you?" to which the witness replied, "No". In the light of her evidence, and most especially in the light of the lack of any real cross-examination of that witness, the complaints sofar as they relate to her, are dismissed. The third Respondent witness, JP, told the Tribunal that she met the Complainant at the beginning of the new year after he had been sent to School #1. She drove him around in her own car, helping him to familiarise with the neighbourhood, and in particular finding accommodation, and informing him of local activities in which he expressed some interest, such as dramatics. She further told the Tribunal that she "did everything I could to assist the professional development of Mr Crook. I spent more time and effort helping Mr Crook than I had done with any person that I'd ever supervised, and anyone that I've ever supervised since." She gave evidence of staff meetings and other meetings in which she observed the efforts of various staff members, but most particularly the Principal, BR, to assist the Complainant. She described her shock and dismay when she heard the Complainant, as a young "beginning" teacher, speak to the Principal loudly and rudely. In cross-examination there was nothing put to the witness in respect of allegations that had previously been placed before the Tribunal. Indeed, in his earliest evidence the Complainant, under cross-examination stated that he made no allegations against JP, and after that time had "no live allegations against" JP. Nevertheless, the Complainant in the course of cross-examining JP made the unsustainable, and perfectly outrageous suggestion that she had somehow fabricated and/or falsified long-standing documents, documents which were in existence long before the Complainant had ever been at the School. Of that the Tribunal is satisfied. In the light of the Complainant's concessions under cross-examination in respect of his allegations against JP, his complaints are dismissed. This matter has been a long time coming to finality. In particular the decision has been delayed some two and a half months; and that requires an explananation from the Judicial Member. Initially a timetable was set for the parties to write up and submit their arguments on the evidence, with the Respondent to be given the opportunity to reply to the Complainant's submissions. The Complainant did not submit any such document within the time granted, and demanded further time to do so. Further time was granted, but there was still no written submission made by him. After several weeks the Judicial Member indicated through the staff that the Respondent's submissions would be received in the absence of the Complainant's submissions. The Respondent rightly objected to that course of action, however, in the circumstances there appeared to be no further options available. It would seem that upon receipt of the Respondent's submissions, the Complainant then demanded further time in which to make written submissions, but no further communications were had between him and Tribunal staff on that point. At about that time members of the Tribunal went on holidays, one after the other. It was brought to the attention of Tribunal members that at the same time the Complainant began to make further demands, and became threatening and abusive in his behaviour towards staff and others. Altogether, the delays in bringing these matters to finality have been in the major part the result of the Complainant's abusive and obstructive behaviour. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.