Bank Manager’s Dismissal

Hokitika Guardian, 5 August 1921, Page 3

Bank Manager’s Dismissal

SUPREME COURT ACTION. AUCKLAND, Aug. 3 .M r .1 list ice Sa Imond gave judgment in the Supreme Court on the preliminary points raised in the case in which Arthur Charles Thymic, hank manager, Morrisville, claimed £2OO from tli Lank ol Australasia for alleged wrongful dismissal. The' case, which was a special one stated for the determination ol the Court, involved two questions: (1) Whether the engagement of plaintifl was properly terminated, and 2) whether plaintiff was entitled to receive any contributions paid by him to the provident fund. With regard to the first question his Honour held it depended upon the interpretation and effect of the agreement ol service, and to whether the agreement provided that service might he t-‘ rmiiiutod by notice in wilting by fit her side or by t he paying of a month’s sal Irv in lieu of notice. This being clearly provided, the dispute turned mi the meaning of the term salary in the agreeiiK at. Plaintiff was in receipt of J a fixed salary of £3,20. with house allowance of £/52. and on terminating his service, he was paid one twelfth of Will (one month’s salary) thus disregarding the house allowance. The plaintiff contended that in assessing the month’s salary payable to him, it should he based on his total annual remuneration. He contended that salary should he wage exclusive of any allowance. "I am satisfied the hank acted constitutionally, and that the term salary does not include the whole of the emoluments” said his Honour. “Salary must he distinguished from allowance; allowances are in the nature of a reimbursement. An example is a travellers’ allowance and the allowance paid to a Defence officer.” His Honour held that in excluding the allowance, the hank had acted in accordance with the cuiiIract between the parties. With re-J gard to the money contributed to the superannuation fund, his Honour was of opinion that plaintiff had no claim to this. The rules of the fund provided for plaintiff remaining in the service of thi> hank for a certain time, and the bank had the right to dismiss plaintiff from its service a short lime before he had reached the age when lie was entitled to participate in the benefits. It would he an obvious consideration, observed his Honour, for the plaintiff to have received any benefit, as all servants of the hank joined in contributing to the fund on the terms that it would be distributed in a manner and according to the conditions prescribed in the rules. “Even if the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed, he had no claim on tfie fund,” concluded his Honour. The determination of these points of law disposetl of the whole action. Costs were allowed the defendant.