A DISMISSAL CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2022, 6 March 1907, Page 2

A DISMISSAL CASE.

Mr. Barton gave judgment yesterday in the case in which Aubrey Houston sued Common, Shelton and Co, for £l3 13s Sd damages for wrongful dismissal. His Worship said: “Plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant company the sum of 4s 4d arrears of salary and £l3 13s Sd, damages for wrongful dismissal. From the evidence it appears that plaintiff entered the services of defendant company on Jan. 28tli as a clerk at a salary of £132 per annum, such employment being determinable by ono month’s notice on either side. After plaintiff had boon in the service of 'the defendant company a week he gave notice to Mr Pasley, secretary to the company, that he desired to leave at the end of the following week, to which Mr Pasley objected on the ground that a month’s notice of determination was necessary on either side. Plaintiff’s evidence is that Mr Pasley told him at the same time that if thoy got another man they would let him go, and that he then told Mr Pasley that it would be too late, and that ho would remain on at a monthly rate, to which Mr Pasley replied ‘Very well.’ A new clerk arrived on February 13th, and Mr Pasley then told plaintiff he could leave, which plaintiff refused to do without a month’s notice. For the defence Mr Pasley says that having on February 13th succeeded in getting another clerk, he told plaintiff so and that he could then leave, whereupon plaintiff said that he was willing to stay on if Mr Pasley made him a decent sort of offer. Mr Pasley told him he could not do so. Plaintiff then said that as Mr Pasley had not accepted his week’s notice that he would demand a month’s notice. Mr Pasley further says: ‘I told plaintiff that there was plenty of work in the office, and that if he could do his work fairly and well I would let him stay on till ho could get something else. lie said he had heard of two positions, and asked me if he succeeded in obtaining one of them would I let him go at all.’ Mr Pasley in his evidence admits that he told the plaintiff that the ' company might want a month’s notice from him. Looking at the evidence and all surrounding circumstances I am of opinion that plaintiff was entitled to a month’s notice of determination of his services. It is clear from tlie evidence of Mr Pasley that after February 13th he considered a montlrs notice was necessary from plaintiff, and that being so plaintiff was entitled to a similar notice from defendants. There is no evidence cf misconduct on the part of plaintiff sufficient to justify defendants in dismissing plaintiff without notice. Judgment will therefore be for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £2 Ss.’’