FREEZING WORKS CONTRACT

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 17 June 1933, Page 5

FREEZING WORKS CONTRACT

CLAIM AGAINST PATEA COMPANY ALLEGED WRONG DETERMINATION. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. In the Patea Magistrate’s Courtyesterday a claim was heard before Mr. J. H. Salmon, 5.M.,. in which Harold George Weston proceeded against the Patea Farmers’ Co-onera-tive Association for the sunt of £2OO as damages for alleged wrongful, determination of bis contract- for slaughtering and dressing of pigs for the- 193233 season. After heanna the evidence the magistrate non-suited plaintiff on the ground mainly that his work was not done in a- maner satisfactory to the foreman of the works.

Mr. 11. Anderson, New Plymouth, appeared for plaintiff and Mr. A. K. North (Hawera) for the- company. In opening, counsel for plaintiff referred to the agreement made by the company with his client and maintained that he had fulfilled the clauses thereof. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that it was not till Christmas last that a complaint was made about the bleeding. of the pigs, and that it was not do7ie properly. "there were no complaints about the scraping of the pigs, though, he said, he had inexperienced assistants during the previous* two months. He admitted complaints now and again and said he was told pigs must he better dressed, liis reply B«ing that he was; doing his best. He suggested to the manager that, in case of a further complaint, he should call in an arbitrator in terms of his agreement. Ho arranged to get- tv, o experienced men from outside to come down and inspect his work. Some complaints were made concerning broken parts round the flank or some pig.s and back bleeding. Then on February 24 he had notice of dismissal. He consulted his lawyer and made o demand on the company for damages. Plaintiff gave details of the numner of pigs slaughtered and dressed and the amount he made after paying wages. He based his claim on an estimate of pigs to be. received, alleged by him' to have been made to Jum for the season’s operations. In reply to Mr -North, plaintiff admitted he would probably have made an additional £45. basing the work on the number of pigs received to the time of the termination of contract. He was unset that more pigs had not been available for him. He denied that the foreman and tffe Meat Boar.' inspector had tried to help him to do better work. , In reply to questions, witness stated that his father had come m to help him and had done a good deal of the finishing while he was at the works. He said he was not used to aving complaints made regarding his work and just taking it as a matter of course. He was warned before dismissal, bui could not say how ninnv times, adding that all along he hue done his best Answering Mr Anderson, "witness said he had estimated his loss at £2OO because he expected many more pigs "or the season and said he complained to the; secretary. • . . Henry Weston, father of plaintiff, gave evidence of the contract made with his sou and said that while he was with his son at the works there were very few complaints, and the latter was certainly able to do tin 1 finishing. ■ . Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Michael Bourke (of J. C. Hutton, Ltd) and Percy Sower by (of T. H. Walker and Sons, Ltd.). Addressing the court, Mr North saict the question was largely one of fact Plaintiff had been given more consxieration than was usual because he came to the works when labour d.stilrbances were rife and that he yad sen helped in every possible way. Counsel repudiate* a suggestion that any misrepresentation had been made by the company, adding that plaintiff evidently had" a grievance aga.nst them. Mr. Hansen, Meat Board inspector and the works inspector, had both tried to help plaintiff. Ernest Hansen,' inspector lor the Meat Board, gave evidence of the work done when he visited any freezing works an* of the help he had offered to plaintiff at various times until he was at last obliged to report adversely to the foreman and to the board. He considered the company had treated plaintiff very well, for he had seen a lot, of hack bleeding wh.de plaintiff was on the job of slaughtering. Answering Mr Anderson, witness said he inspected dressed carcases probably once a week, but saw much of trie work done at the time of killing. The foreman had. to see that the standard of dressing was maintained. He also gave details of work he had done to help plaintiff to improve and stressed the great care necessary to secure the results needed to secure the best condition in carcases. . George W. Mellor, Government inspector, said he had several times tried to show plaintiff how to improve his work, but Ije would not listen Tne foreman also treated him well and he had“ a fair spin.” His own work, lie said, included grading and weighing of pigs and packing and ho had power to reject any carcases not fit for export. _ The works foreman, N. C. Freeman, gave evidence of the consideration shown plaintiff and his efforts to . how him his mistakes. He said his <xperienoe as a butcher covered twenty two years and he said the finishing o! the carcase was the most important job to be done. His 'Worship said the case ".as one largely of fact and it was necessary to refer specialy to two clauses in the agreement between plaintiff and the company, the one stating that all work was to be done, “in a proper and workmanlike manner, to the satisfaction of

the foreman” and the other that in ease of a difference arbitration should be arranged. Plaintiff had definitely admitted complaints, which were more Frequent after his father had left, and plaintiff was doing the finishing, when his work distinctly deteriorated. He considered Mr Hansen’s evidence very important because he was an inilepnedent witness and on his work depended very largely the success ol the export trade. He. had stated that plaintiff eouki do the work required if lie washed but he was slack. Apparently the two witnesses trom Eltharu and Hawera had come to the works on one of plaintiff's good days. He dismissed the suggestion that the ehanical appliances were to bmm because, if so, .the damage would be exnceted to be consistent, but it was only oeasional. For these reasons, said His "Worship, and the fact that plaintiff’s work was irregular and fluctuating, he considered the company justified in exercising the clause of tin agreement concerning the “satisfaction of the foreman.” Plaintiff would be non-suited, with costs to scale against aim, and expenses of witnesses.