Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DRIVERS' WAGES

QUESTION OF DISMISSAL

EMPLOYER HELD LIABLE

The case in which William Stephei Fisher and lvo Greer, drivers, proceedei against l< , . T. Moore and Co., motor pro priclors, of Jolmsonville, on claims fo .£3 and £i respectively in lieu of a week' notice, was continued before Mr. F. V Frazer, S.M., at the Magistrate's Cour yesterday. ilr. J. A. Scott appeared for the plain iiß'3 and Mr. A. W. Blair and defendant The two eases arose out of the allege! dismissal of Greer and Fisher by Moor 01 December 11, 1918. Plaintiffs set on that, as a result of u meeting held oi tho evening of December 11, at whicl defendant's employees decided to join th Drivers' Union, they were dismissed with out notice. . . George Macfarlane, motor driver in th employ of defendant, said that for i week the employees hud been discussiii] tha question of wages, considering tka they were not receiving sufficient. The; went to Moore, und asked for more pay Moore replied that lie could not pay £ a, week, and told the men to please them solves as to whether they continued work ing.. It was arranged that they shoulc leave their jobs unless they got mor pay. On the morning of December 1 four lorries went out, but there wer ithers'in the garage, lie did not knov ivhether thero was work for the other )r not. To Mr. Scott: When they approachei Moore the first thing they said to Inn ivns that they wanted more pay. N. •.pecial sum was mentioned, but Moor isked what wage lie would have to pay md Greer replied that the union \va isking £b. The impression witnes tained was that if they did not like thei iresent wages they could leave Moore imriloy. , , Mr. Frazer: Wero you "sacked, o lid you men go out on strike? Witness: It was about halt and half IVo told him ( that the wages were no ;ood enough, and he told us he could no >ay more, so we might as ■Wβ!! finish up. Mr. Blair: Did you indicate that yoi i-ould not return to work tho followini nornins:?—He finished us up and we fin shed him up- (Laughter.) . Gilbert Gordon Satherley, motor driver aid the men interviewed Moore, am sked for union wages. Me&re said hi wild not pay £5 a week and overtime rhich were then being demanded by tn< )rivers' Union. Greer was the first mai o brine up the question of £b a weel ra»es. The men indicated that the; ronld hot start again at the rate o rases which was then obtaining. Mr Scott: Was Mr. Moore excited ?- 'No " Moore stated that if he was com idled to pay the wages asked ho wouli rat his lorries away'until the end o he war. Witness turned up to work oi ho morning following the interview vritl iloore. and Macfariane came on duty i ittle later. I'onr lorries went out tha norning. If Fisher and Greer had com. long to the garage at 8 o clock then rould have been no one there to se< he.m. Witness understood that iloor iismissed all hands because no could no >oy union wages if they joined the union loore said he would not have breer o fisher back, but witness was not awar f the reason. To the Bench: Witness understood n ras "sacked," as Moore told the mei o finish that night (December 11), lie auso there would be no more work lo Hie Worship said he was satisfied tha 11 the .witnesses had been tellme tin ruth but that both parties had com way from the interview with somewha lifferent views as to the effect of whn iftjjpenwl there. He did not think th ne.i had been guilty of a breach of con rac». as they had been willing to nniel iUt the week. They were given no op lortimity of doing that, however, as the; tere told that they could nnish tha ■Hit. Neither side had disonssed th uestion of when the increases wouli ake effect. The whole thing was i iiisunderstanding on Moore s part, but ll ras obvious that he had dismissed the nen there and then, and had thereby oininitted a breach of contract. Judgment was given for each of fie ■lnintift's for the amount claimed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19190307.2.72

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 139, 7 March 1919, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
718

DRIVERS' WAGES Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 139, 7 March 1919, Page 6

DRIVERS' WAGES Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 139, 7 March 1919, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert