Bones of Contention: The Susan Mowat v Boys' High Employment Case: "Punishing" Cross-Examination By Boy's High Lawyer Puts Mowat Allegations Under Key-Hole Scrutiny

Article 3: Day 2 of the Mowat v Christchurch Boys' High School Board of Trustees case in the Employment Relations Authority.

As previously reported, on Day 2 (1 April 2025) of this employment dispute saw the applicant Susan Mowat break down following a question from Boys' High lawyer, AJ Lodge over the Amy Keir's anonymous letters investigation. Lodge put it to her that the Keir thought Mowat was the source of much of the contents of the letters. The hearing was adjourned.

This article’s storyline recommences after the adjournment.

Lodge recommenced her cross examination of Mowat and asked her again. Mowat responded that the word "source" was a problematic word.

On 16 February 2019, Mowat provided a list of concerns she had, to the Boys' High board. On 4 March, she met with a board subcommittee made up of Leanne Watson and David Caldwell. Later in the hearing, exactly what they said to her would become a bone of contention between Mowat and the board and whether she was given her first warning.

Mowat agreed she had been told she could bring a support person but not a PPTA person. She had wanted Greg Mehrtens and a second male staff member to attend. But that was deemed inappropriate because the meeting needed to remain confidential. In the end Mowat attended by herself.

After the meeting, Watson sent Mowat a letter regarding the meeting.

Mowat contended she was given her first warning at that meeting. But Lodge said that nowhere in letter does it refer to a first warning. Mowat responded that she was 195% sure she it had happened and that her long-time colleague Steven Fraser had given her a second warning. But she could not find a letter to support her recall of it.

On 4 December 2019, Michael Singleton, the new board chair, confirmed she had breached the school code of conduct and that the letter dated 14 March did not impose expectations on her as a teacher than other teachers at the school.

Questioning turned to Mowat's request for mediated assistance. It would become another bone of contention whether and when the board became aware of Mowat's request and why the board turned it down as a means to resolve Mowat's concerns spelt out in her email of 16 February.

Lodge begun by telling Mowat that she did not seek mediation with principal Nic Hill. Mowat says on 14 March, Watson and Caldwell told her she could not mediate with Hill.

Lodge's questioning moved back in time to Nic Hill's interactions with Mowat in 2018.

Lodge said that in March 2018, Hill had responded by email to Mowat. He wrote he was concerned for her health and wellbeing, that she should prioritise her safety at work and could use EAP assistance.

On 15 March, Hill and a second person by the surname Brown understood Mowat felt safe and emotionally safe at the school. It is not clear from my notes how what this relates to.

On 16 March Hill met with Mowat possibly in the presence of teachers Matt Parr and J Kendall. In a follow-up letter he encouraged Mowat to use EAP.

Under questioning, Mowat admitted she fine at the school but was "starting to feel uncomfortable with Nic".

Watson also wrote to all staff on 17 September 2018, telling staff that their wellbeing was of the "utmost importance".

Mowat admitted too that she had been encouraged to seek in school assistance and took it. Again, the type and quality of support she received-through retired senior leader Steve Fraser-would be another bone of contention and confusing element to this story. Comments that Mowat made about Fraser's "incredible support" and her thanking him would muddy the waters further in the already muddied waters of this case.

Lodge moved the story back in time to February 2019 after the Keir investigation into the anonymous letters. Mowat agreed board chair Watson had encouraged her to seek more support and that Caldwell had encouraged her to see the school's Head of school's Guidance Department, counsellor Micha Multhaup.

Lodge referred to a file note made by Watson from March 2019. She had encouraged Mowat to take support, both from inside and outside the school, and had told her the board was committed to supporting her.

These comments likely need to be read against the context of that time in Mowat's employment in the school. As would be heard later in the hearing, Mowat was deeply concerned her reputation had been damaged through by way of the school's handling of the anonymous letters scandal and was fearful of Hill retaliating against her after hearing he was upset regarding her contribution to it.

It would be Mowat's contention this meeting was a first step in the school disciplining her in the wake of the anonymous scandal, such was its importance in the case, much of which would turn on two alternate memories of what happened that day on 14 March 2019 between Watson and Caldwell, and her and her support person Steve Fraser later that year in the lead up to her December-2019 resignation.

A key point, amongst several bones of contention, was that Watson's letter to Mowat was not an accurate record of the meeting 14 March 2019.

In 2019, Mowat was put in the charge of Steve Fraser and Nigel Vernon. She could communicate with Fraser and take leave when she needed to.

It was her long-time colleague Fraser, alleged Mowat, that had first mentioned to her the matter of her "safety" in August 2018. On 23 August he had emailed her telling her he or the school were committed to working with her.

Mowat admitted to Lodge she had thanked Fraser for his support and had recognised him and her two Heads of Department for their "incredible support".

Prior to lunch of day 2, Lodge moved her questions towards Mowat's use of sick leave and Fraser and the school's unsuccessful efforts to reintegrate Mowat back into the school work environment in 2019.

On 28 August 2019, a member of the board, possibly Caldwell, wrote to Mowat, expressing concern about her use of sick leave. Mowat would take 7 weeks of leave. But no response was received from Mowat or her PPTA representative Jo Martin. According to Mowat, she contacted Fraser.

On 28 August 2019, Leanne Watson contacted both Mowat and her husband Rich. She reiterated that Mowat could use EAP and to let them know, in case she needed other support. She also told Mowat that they [the who is not recorded in my notes] wanted to work with her to ensure support. As already mentioned, Fraser would provide her with support.

On 4 September 2019, Mowat wrote to Fraser about her return to work, telling him "see you next week". She admitted to a "feeling in [her] stomach" still being there.

In her mind, the school board did not want to know about her concerns and wanted her to "go away".

In September 2019, Mowat returned to work, and stayed there until he resignation in December of that year. She admitted could contact Fraser in beginning, but that that changed after Fraser begun his investigation into an incident involving a student and Mowat, a matter that the Employment Relations Authority member Lucia Vincent had ordered be suppressed.

Lodge put to Mowat she had never asked for a staged return. It is unclear whether agreed or disagreed with this.

The parties then adjourned for lunch.

After lunch, Lodge launched into the suppressed incident.

On 11 November 2019, attended a formal meeting, during which she was told the outcome could be a finding of serious misconduct, including summary dismissal. Documents related to the matter were confidential and she was EAP support and the right to PPTA support.

Questioning moved to what was said at that meeting.

According to Lodge, the meeting minutes (made presumably by Fraser), showed he reiterated the availability of EAP and made another comment related to "any other supports".

Mowat says the first time she read Boys' High's notes from that meeting was in 2025.

It was at this meeting, Mowat admitted she had spoken to Maika about the incident. This action was yet another bone of contention during the hearing: was Mowat was entitled to confide a counsellor, who was also staff member. And had the board taken disciplinary action against her actions.

After their meeting, Fraser drafted a report for the board and Mowat received a letter. But she says she never saw the report and was not given a chance to provide feedback, or check for inaccuracies or missing information, or whether Fraser had put in to it additional information, that she viewed as relevant.

But Lodge refuted her claim that she hadn't had an opportunity to respond, pointing to a letter of 26 November 2019 that allowed for her to respond in writing and discuss.

On 4 December 2019, Mowat met with a board subcommittee. Mowat believed Watson ran part of the meeting, before Singleton took over. Later in the hearing, Singleton testified he ran the meeting.

Mowat admitted to Lodge she was fine not taking a support person into the meeting, despite being entitled to one.

Mowat agreed that in relation to her actions, she had stepped over the mark. She accepted the board was open to listening.

Lodge put it to Mowat she had been asked to respond to the allegation she had gone to the counsellor. She was free to speak to him, she retorted.

According to Lodge, the subcommittee was satisfied with her response. But Mowat said a letter said she could face dismissal for talking to him. In her view, the school had encouraged her to go to counsellor but had realised it was the wrong move.

Lodge contended the board did not go further with the matter and spoke of Singleton writing to Mowat on 6 December 2019, seeking her response before either [the board or subcommittee] had made a final decision. Mowat says she wrote to Singleton on 10 December 2019.

On 13 December 2019 she received a final written warning from the subcommitee. At this point, Mowat re-mentioned that this was her second warning, and that her first was received on 14 March 2019. This claim-of a first (and therefore "second" warning) was something that the board, either through Lodge and/or Singleton had denied.

A further bone was whether the subcommittee's disciplinary action precipitated Mowat's resignation.

Mowat explained she wanted to stay on at the school and work to improve health and wellbeing [of what I did not note but it could have been for student and/or staff health and wellbeing]; she had been horrified that she could be told not to seek help.

But agreed the board's disciplinary action had no bearing on her resignation; rather it was the process that did, by not receiving the report (presumably she was referring to Fraser's report) and information being left out.

Following on from either Mowat's resignation or disciplinary action, according to Lodge, the school was obliged to report to the Teaching Council. It recommended no further action be taken against Mowat.

Lodge's cross examination moved to a large bone: the board minutes purportedly documented the board's conduct during parts of 2019, in the lead-up to Mowat's resignation, and the purported use, abuse, and non-use of BoardPro technology.

By way of background, in or about May/June 2019, Boys' High's board phased in the use of BoardPro to record what happened at its meetings.

It also yielded one of the most technical and complex parts of the hearing, hearing evidence from Mowat, the board secretary and two experts in meta data.

N.B: I have, deleted parts of my notes of her testimony, where they later make no sense to me.

During Mowat's testimony, she said she had made a Privacy Act request and received three sets of publicly excluded (PX) board minutes. She alleged they had been tampered with. This was a claim the board denied.

Her argument was based on telephone converations she had had with a BoardPro employee.

Boys' High argument, through Lodge, was simply that it was obligated to correct board minutes for the sake of accuracy. But Mowat, told Lodge, that it was not obligated to change them after a Privacy Act request.

> The June 2019 PX minutes

During the testimony, Mowat alleged the original June minutes were made in June in Board Pro. But that the minutes she received were not the originals because did not resemble BoardPpro-type minutes. They were not one and the same.

In Mowat's view, the former board secretary and Doig's predecessor, Brenda Preston, had created an agenda for the June meeting in June, and that BoardPro had been used for the entire meeting, and that two versions of the June minutes had been created.

Michal Singleton, said Lodge, had told Mowat, on 17 December 2019, that PX minutes were only added to BoardPro from July 2019 despite the system being used from May. That was when, Lodge contended, June's PX minutes had been created, and not earlier.

> The August 2019 PX minutes

Lodge told Mowat she contended these minutes were false. She asked for to describe the false parts.

Mowat said the minutes had not reached the review stage (the second stage in the process) in BoardPro, rather that they were in draft (stage one). She believed they had been altered on 2 and 3 October 2019.

After lunch, Lodge asked Mowat about her and her husband's complaint to the Privacy Commissioner's Office after her resignation. Mowat disagreed she had received all her personal information from the school.

She had asked the school for the meta data it had for the BoardPro minutes and hadn't received it. She told the hearing the commissioner's office had nothing to do with meta data.

On 17 December 2019, Singleton replied to Mowat's email, in which she asked him 5 questions in relation to June PX minutes, the agenda [assume for the June meeting] and Brenda Preston. According to Mowat, Singleton indicated Preston was not new to her role at the time. Mowat disagreed.

In reply to Lodge's question about the relevance of the minutes, Mowat contended that Brenda Preston only used BoardPro, saying that Steve Fraser and another staff member Zino told her so.

If that were true, then that backed up her claim that the original minutes were made in BoardPro, and countered the board's claims they weren't.

On 18 December 2019, according to Lodge, Mowat resigned and filed a personal grievance. In her email to Singleton, she said it [likely she means her position at the school] was "untenable as of yesterday".

Lodge continued to question Mowat over the relevance of the board minutes, that Singleton and a subcommittee didn't know. Mowat held firm and said Leanne Watson had questioned that too. Lodge hammered the point: Leanne Watson had no understanding of her concern. Nor did the board.

Her line of questioning moved to her meeting with Leanne Watson and Singleton on 4 December in relation to a suppressed matter. My notes are not clear, but Singleton may have asked her were there issues that had not been resolved. Mowat confirmed she had left her lawyer from Chapman Tripp, Garth Galloway, to deal with that. The school did not hear from Galloway.

At this time, Mowat alleged there had been dishonesty in a November email chain. She referred to an email she had received from Singleton on 6 December 2019. It was not clear what her concerns were at this stage but related to Singleton's view that he didn't understand, [presumably, her] concerns.

Lodge began a new stage in questioning.