CORRESPONDENCE

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

CORRESPONDENCE

NOTICE. To the Editor of the Gisborne Times. Sir, —From tlic Magistrate's decision in the case against Common, Shelton and Co., Ltd., for wrongful dismissal, it would appear that our worthy Magistrate sets np a new law unknown at the present time to employers generally, and that is that a clerk cannot be dismissed with a month’s notice until the first of any month; otherwise how is it possible to reconcile his decision, in the above

mentioned case, “That after 13th February ho considered a month’s notico was necessary from plaintiff, and that being so plaintiff was entitled to a similar notice from defendants.” And, although this notico (to quote the Magistrate’s own words) dated from 13th February, judgment was entered for arnounl claimed and costs—that is salary lroin Ist to 31st March. As you had a reporter present, do you think an explanation possible P—l am, etc., PUZZLED. [Many cases may be cited wherein it is held that notice of termination of engagement cannot take effect from the middle of a term. Whether a. week’s or a month’s notice is stipulated it must take effect from the first day of the term. According to the judgment, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to salary for the month of March. Why ho claimed only £l3 13s Sd is for himself to explain, for the Magistrate would evidently have awarded moro had it been claimed.— Ed. G.T.]