Lawyers who work for Government: how NZ School Boards fired unjabbed teachers

In Nov 2021 the NZ School Boards were provided with convenient template letters so they could fire their non-compliant staff.

• *Substack tells me this post is apparently slightly too long for an email - please click on the headline to read the full version - thank you for your support! **

Unstitching what happened to the New Zealand teachers who were sacked as a result of the NZ COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 is proving a long and depressing task. But it is essential. This post continues the conversation about what went on behind the scenes when, on Nov 15th 2021, Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins declared all teaching staff should be ‘vaccinated’.

Brief Background to the NZ ‘No Jab, No Job’ Mandates:

I’ve explained previously about how the NZ Government secretly worked with the biggest commercial companies behind the scenes during August and Sept 2021. The ‘pilot scheme’ took place over 6 weeks and involved analysing various coercive strategies, or ‘nudges’, in order to get the maximum numbers of Kiwi folk compliant with the experimental injections. The subsequent ‘staff consultation period’ then, was a sham:

One of the psyops used was the background music and BigPharma adverts on Red Radio for the ‘safe and effective’ at The Warehouse Group. Learn more about that one example (of many) here:

Other strategies were also happening behind the scenes, in order to roll-out the mass ‘vaccination’ programme in New Zealand and across the globe. One of those strategies was hidden from view (until now): how the Large Law Firms in NZ worked together with Government. To learn more about which law firms and how this happened, catch up on last week’s article here:

What did these law firms do, and why?

In ‘normal’ times, disclosure of any private medical information, and the risk of potential discrimination because of that information, would have been illegal. Obviously. But legalese-experts have a knack of twisting words, ignoring facts and making assumptions, that could be useful to those intent on demolishing democracy and justice system. Our NZ Privacy Act, our NZ Bill of Rights Act (based on the Human Rights Act) and various Employment Laws such as the Health and Safety at Work Act and the informed consent sections of the Health and Disability Services Act were suddenly seen, not as sacrosanct, protecting citizens from totalitarianism, but instead as challenges that lawyers needed to overcome. So lawyers from the Large Law Firms in NZ were paid to supply ‘template letters’ to the schools, hospitals, universities, prisons and other public sectors, where the jab mandates were imposed. These templates provided an interpretation of the law that was skewed towards ignoring the lack of evidence on safety (and increasing evidence of harm) and efficacy of the jab, instead supporting the views of Government that the ‘no jab, no job’ mandates were the only way to (using Gates’ words) ‘return to normalcy’ (10 mins):

By getting those ‘administrators’ to use their own legalese words, the lawyers could ‘cover all the bases’. Their expertise made them fully aware of the ‘danger zone’ they were in, with regard to the illegality of terminating employment contracts in this unethical way. But these law firms benefit from $millions of income from Government every year, and could not deny their paymasters. This covid era opportunity was also too good to miss - many likely made more profit than ever before, by providing continuous pro-narrative ‘legal advice’ to various PPPs and Gov Depts. More on that financial side next week, but today, let’s look at how this legal advice was presented and what it looked like…

A ‘Due Process’ in Employment Law

Many readers will already be familiar with aspects of employment law. NZ law is very immature and ambiguously written. With a sparse population, high cost of living, poor wages and expensive lawyers, there is little incentive for the ‘little man’ to make a fuss. Gagging orders (NDAs) are the common ways that those brave enough to stick their head above the parapet are closed down. Blacklisting is widespread in a society with only one degree of separation. Those from the UK may know that many of the Acts and Caselaw here, are based on historical UK judgments, and litigation is rare. Nevertheless, Employment Law is (was) relatively well developed (maybe because of its toxic environment) and staff fairly well protected in terms of holiday and parental leave etc. It is usual, for example, for unfair dismissal to be determined if there isn’t evidence of managers’ ‘investigating all reasonable avenues’ to avoid your contract being ended and to engage in ‘good faith’ dialogue throughout the process.

extract from Employee Rights and Responsibilities: Note the absence explicitly of ‘vaccination status’ which formed the basis of the ambiguous interpretation of the pro-narrative lawyers’ advice.

Consultation, conversations, mediation, compromises, temporary placements, secondments, study leave, unpaid leave….the list goes on in terms of what employers COULD and SHOULD do, to avoid firing someone who is perfectly willing and capable of doing their job.

So, how did these Large Law Firms (Group Ltd) jump over these annoying hurdles in existing legislation? For an example, let’s turn to one of the pro-narrative puppets in the ‘No Jab, No Job’ machinery, the New Zealand School Boards Association (formerly NZSTA), and in this PC-mad woke era, now renamed Te Whakarōputanga Kaitiaki Kura o Aotearoa. This ‘professional body’ for school boards in New Zealand, claims to:

“represent and advocate for its members and provides services to all state and state-integrated schools and kura {Maori-immersion schools}.”

But rather than ‘represent and advocate’ for their members in good faith, it seemed to have already skipped the consultation and mediation guidelines and promoted what employment lawyers call a ‘predetermined outcome’ about the fate of any ‘unvaccinated’ staff. This is clear from their website (fortunately archived thanks to the WayBack Machine here) dated 28th October 2021, and later, on 30th November, where NZSTA stated they had:

“prepared guidance/advice/resources and references to support you to follow the necessary steps in the process:

1. Good employer processes – stand downs and termination.

2. We’ve informed/engaged and supported – what now? Moving towards standing down employees.

3. We’re moving towards termination of employment – what do we need to do?”

What NZSTA didn’t explain here, is how the ‘very convenient’ template letters they had provided, for swiftly and effortlessly firing all those dissident staff who did not comply, were created by the Large Law Firms, including this letter:

[Date]

[Contact details]

Dear [Name]

Notice of Termination of Employment

1. We write further to our conversations and meeting with you regarding the requirement under the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 (Order), that you had to receive your first approved Covid-19 vaccination by the close of 15 November 2021 to continue to carry out work at or for our school, at a time that students will be present and/or that may involve contact with students.

2. On the basis of the information in our COVID-19 Vaccine Register, you have still not received an approved COVID-19 vaccination [and you have advised that you do not intend to do so] [delete if incorrect].

3. We have consulted with you about the impact of being unvaccinated on your ongoing employment with us. As discussed, the effect of the Order is that you cannot lawfully carry out your role while unvaccinated, because your role requires you to be on site at a time that students will be present and/or may involve contact with students. We have been unable to identify and agree any suitable alternative working arrangements or redeployment opportunities for you, which do not involve you needing to be present at school when students are present or that may involve contact with students.

4. As you have not received your first approved Covid-19 vaccination, and you cannot lawfully carry out your role unless vaccinated, this letter serves as notice of termination of your employment.

Consultation Process

5. On [insert date], we wrote to you and explained the requirement for you to be vaccinated under the Order. We explained the impact your decision to not get vaccinated could have on your ongoing employment, and that you would not be permitted to perform your role for us on site after 15 November 2021. We advised you that you could seek advice or support from your union, representative or lawyer and to bring a support person, representative or lawyer to our meeting.

6. You have confirmed that you had not been vaccinated and did not intend to do so [or you refused to advise us of your vaccination status].

[Insert any other applicable dates/steps you have taken in respect of the employee]

7. We met with you on [date] to seek your feedback about your decision not to be vaccinated and the impact this could have on your ongoing employment. We talked about: [remove any that do not apply]

· Your reasons for not getting vaccinated, and whether you intend to be vaccinated in the near future

· Whether you have reasons to consider your duties are not covered by the Order

· Whether you were seeking an exemption to the vaccination requirement

· Whether any suitable alternative arrangements existed regarding your employment

· Whether there were any suitable redeployment opportunities available

Confirmation of termination of employment

8. For the reasons explained above, we advise that, unfortunately, your employment is being terminated on the basis that you are not vaccinated, and you cannot carry out your work without being in breach of the Order.

9. In accordance with your [insert entitlement from employment agreement] notice period, your final day of employment will be [date]. You will receive your usual salary and entitlements through to that date. [Alternatively, the school has elected to pay you in lieu of notice and your termination date will be xxx].

10. For the period of your notice you cannot undertake work that may involve contact with students, or work on site at a time when students will be present. You will continue to be available to work as directed.

11. If you do subsequently receive your first and second Covid-19 vaccinations during your notice period, (with your second Covid-19 vaccination being before the close of 1 January 2022), we may (at our discretion) consider withdrawing notice of termination of your employment. This will not be possible if we have appointed a replacement.

12. Thank you for your contribution to our school and if we can provide any support for you at this time please let us know.

Yours sincerely

[Principal’s Name]

[Board Chair name]

In other words, dear Boards, don’t mess around, just fill out the blanks and fire your staff. “Easy as!”

This prompts many questions. One is, were the lawyers from Simpson Grierson - yes, one of the Large Law Firms I mention in the above linked article from last week - who provided this for NZTSA just lazy, incompetent, or maybe convinced they were doing the right thing, when they left their digital signatures on these documents?

I have seen many of these termination letters over the past three years. Here is one (anonymised) example so you can see for yourselves how, within three weeks, they had bypassed the usual employment processes and ended contracts. In the MINDSPACE report (see this post), this is described as ‘D’ for “Default” - in other words, human behaviour dictates we always opt for the easiest route. This was literally a copy-and-paste exercise for School Boards, designed to be as simple as possible:

In the above example, the staff member was assumed not be working a notice period (ie #10 on the template was deleted). For some, there was no option even for unpaid leave. This was even though by that date, evidence from overseas clearly indicated that transmission was not reduced and ‘vaccine’ harms were serious. Some mandated teaching staff were Principals themselves, some, teachers with decades of experience and expertise. Many were highly qualified and loved their jobs, genuinely caring for their students’ well-being and learning outcomes. Trying hard to be a role-model for critical thinking, explaining what informed consent meant, standing up for what was ethically right….they were fired. To make things worse, exemptions were impossible to obtain, as I wrote about here:

Heartbreakingly, many weren’t even given an opportunity to say goodbye to their students and colleagues, instead they were ostracized from their peer-group and a vocation they had committed their lives to. There are many tragic stories, including some teachers who are jab-injured from the first or second dose and still fired for not taking another. If you know one of these teachers, please do reach out to them.

Writing this, it’s still hard to believe it really happened. But it did. People are still suffering as a result of what captured entities like the NZSTA did to them. There won’t be any accountability, until the whole truth is exposed. The evidence is all around us: Hidden in Plain Sight. And I, for one, don’t plan on giving up on that investigation anytime soon. See NZ Teachers Speaking out with Science for details. Please donate a coffee or three to their financial fund here.

With special thanks to Number 8 Workers Union of New Zealand for contributions to this post. Please support them too. There’s much more to be written about this.