CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 245, 11 July 1921, Page 9

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

A GLASSWORKER’S SUIT WAS “GO-SLOW” PRACTISED? Tn the Magistrate’s Court on Saturday morning, before Mr. E. Page, S.M., Alfred Joseph Ricketts, glaesworker (Mr. P. J. O’Regan), proceeded against Reid and Fenwick. Lid., bevellers and glassworkers (Mr. H. F. O’Leary), claiming _C2(H> by way of damages. Tho position, as set out in the statement of claim, was that on May 4, 1920, the plaintiff, who came from Sydney, entered into a service agreement with the defendant company, whereby the company bound itself to pay plaintiff s travelling expenses from Sydney to Wellington. and to employ him for twenty-four months certain, the agreement to be terminated thereafter by either party on one month’s notice m writing; further, ' that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff per week; that tn April 29, 1921, the defendant company "wrongfully and in breach of the agreement." dismissed plaintiff, who therefore claimed .£2OO damages. The defence was that the plaintiff was rightfully dismissed because (1) he deliberately restricted his work, and (2) he advocated the "go-slow” policy. Roland E. Bennett, secretary to the company, stated that the output showed a distinct improvement since plaintiff left. ; John Colwell, a member of the firm of Reid and Fenwick, said that in March last he became dissatisfied with the output of the employees, and told them eo. Ho informed them that for tho wages paid he required an output of 2000 ft. per week. The men appeared to be quite satisfied, but when the output dropped to 1500 ft. per week it was decided to dismiss Ricketts, whose duty it was to, see that the output was maintained. The plaintiff was dismissed on the instructions of witness. •To Mr. O’Regan: The whole position . was explained to Ricketts at the time of his dismissal. Ernest J. Vann, machine glass beveller, employed by Reid and Fenwick, said that Ricketts told him he wanted the New Zealanders to stick to him, and to adopt, the "go-slow" policy. The remark was addressed to Read in the presence of witness. The "crown and anchor” game was introduced by Ricketts into the workshop, also gambling with cards. There was no gambling before Ricketts came to the works. He hod seen Ricketts loafing at the works. To Mr. O’Regan: There was no cardplaying in the shop except at lunch time prior to Ricketts’s coming to the place. They still played cards during the lunch hour, but did not gamble. Arthur G. Read, employed by Reid and Fenwick, said that he had his lunch at the works; he remarked a conversation Ricketts had with witness’s brother, in which'Ricketts suggested that the "goslow” policy should ho adopted, and that if anyone was sacked they should all walk out. Ricketts introduced the game of "crown and anchor." It was played during tho lunch hour, but he had seen Ricketts playing with others, during working hours, on the polishers* table.

To Mr. O’Regan: Witness did not gamble. , Before Ricketts came to the works cards were played during the dinner hour. When the conversation about "go-slow" took place, witness, his brother. Vann, and another, with Ricketts were present. The conversation took place shortly before Ricketts left. Frank' Read, also employed by Reid and Fenwick, gave corroborative evidence.

William Vetori, foreman for Reid and

Fenwick, stated that he remembered Ricketts and some others did not do sufficient work. Ho often epoke to them, and some of them complained that they were not getting enough money. He had seen Ricketts loafing on many occasions. Once during working hours he

had caught Ricketts gambling, and sent him back to his work. When Ricketts turned out an inadequate amount of work it resulted in other men being held up, for he was an important link in the chain leading to the production of the finished article. To Mr. O’Regan: Ricketts worked all right before the bonus, and he and the other men were ell tho time agitating for the bonus. The Magistrate said he would take time in consider his decision.