A Queensland father has been convicted and fined $750 for insulting a staff member of a government school and wilfully disturbing the good order of that school. According to an article in the Queensland Times, the father, Mr Pitman, confronted the principal of his son’s school following several suspensions of the student, and proceeded to verbally attack the principal in the presence of young students.

The Queensland Times reported that:

• The principal had suspended Mr Pitman’s son several times – the most recent suspension being the previous week;
• On 11 June, Mr Pitman went to the school and verbally abused the principal, using offensive and inappropriate language in front of small children; and
• He was charged with two offences under the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld) (the Act) and has been convicted and fined.

The law

Mr Pitman was convicted under an offence that applies only to government schools, however the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld) contains several powers for principals of non-state schools which they should be aware of. This incident is also a reminder for schools of the importance of ensuring that they maintain a safe workplace, and one where a safety hazard such as parental aggression towards staff, is properly managed.

The Magistrate described his conduct as ‘atrocious’, and stated that there were ways he could have dealt with his complaint, rather than in the manner he did.

What powers do schools have?

Under the Act, principals or executive officers of non-state schools have the ability to give people on the premises instructions to leave if they are using threatening, abusive or insulting language or disrupting the good order or management of the school. They are also able to give directions about an individual’s conduct or movement on school property that last for up to 30 days.

Failure to comply with directions such as this can lead to fines of up to $2356. In serious instances, non-state schools in Queensland can apply to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to ban individuals for up to one year if they pose an unacceptable risk to the school in question.

This power has been used in the past to ban parents who have abused members of staff, as discussed in an earlier article ‘Mother banned from school for punching and threatening to kill principal‘. Non-state schools are required to keeps records of instances in which principals have been forced to issue such directions and to pass these records on to the Minister of Education. Non-state schools are also protected by provisions under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982 (Qld), as it is an offence to threaten to assault another person or to procure another person to do so. Similarly, a person cannot threaten to destroy or damage another person’s property.

What does this mean for non-state schools?

As previously reported, teachers are four times more likely to be affected by adult-adult bullying than the general population, with a quarter of all principals reporting that they have been abused by parents.

This contributes to high workplace stress, which has in turn contributed to the growth in stress-related pay outs to teachers ($9 million in 2010 in Victoria alone). 80% of teachers report that they have been bullied by parents, and a 2012 book suggests that many of these teachers see this as a normal part of their job. A lack of familiarity with their rights can cause teachers to accept abusive behaviour.

A robust reporting system and clear information about the possible outcomes of abusive behaviour could help teachers cope with threats and insults. Principals should be familiar with the circumstances in which they can direct individuals to leave school property and the way in which directions must be given.

Schools, who owe workplace health and safety obligations towards all staff, should also implement controls to the safety hazard presented by angry parents.  Examples of controls may include:

• the publication of a code of conduct for parents;

• the implementation of an effective complaints management system to ensure that parents have an avenue to be heard (our article ‘Key elements of a complaints handling program’ gives more details);

• an internal grievance mechanism that allows staff to report their own concerns and have them effectively dealt with; and

•  maintenance of records of “parent on staff bullying” incidents, which will allow a school’s executive to assess the extent of the problem, and most importantly to identify multiple offenders, and any other systemic trends.

Above all, the interests of the child at the school should be considered before parents decide to engage in offensive behaviour towards their teachers.