BOWLING CLUB TO PAY

Hokitika Guardian, 31 October 1929, Page 3

BOWLING CLUB TO PAY

unreasonable dismissal GREY-MOUTH, Oct. 30. Holding that the one month’s notice of dismissal given by the Greymouth Bowling Club (incorporated) to Albert 'Fairhall, who had held the position of caretaker for 24 years, was unreasonable, Mr IV. Meldrum, S.M., to-day gave judgment in favour of Fairhall for £27, the full amount claimed .as ■wages for the balance of the current year, in lieu of notice. Plaintiff was also allowed costs. The case was heard in the Greymouth Court on October 21st. and .was -fully reported in the “Star” on the following day. Air J. IV. Hannan appeared for plaintiff at the hearing, and was represented by Air H. F. Doogan to-day. Air IV. J. Joyce appeared for the Club. After hearing lengthy evid-ence,--Mr Meldrum reserved his decision, which he gave to-day, as follows 1 : •Plaintiff sues the defendant Club for £27, on the ground that while the hired servant of the defendant he was wrongfully dismissed during the. current year 5 of his service. The facts are that plaintiff was engaged as caretaker of the defendant Club’s bowling green on October 13th., 1905, at a salary of £BO per year. The engagement was renewed from year to year, ;with a rise, to £9O five years ago. On May 22nd., 1929, the following notice was given to plaintiff: “At a meeting or the Greymouth Bowling Club held last night it was resolved to give you one month’s notice to dispense with your service's as . greenkeeper.” On June 12th. a further notice was given, prolonging,the time to June 30th. and a cheque for wages to that date was enclosed with the notice. No reasons were given by the Club for dispensing with plaintiff’s services. This would n,ot preclude the Club from subsequently justifying dismissal on adequate grounds. But, in my opinion, these three facts: (1) That no grounds were given at the time of the notice; (2) That plaintiff’s engagement had Ircen renewed from year to year for 24 years, and (3) That he was given five weeks’ notice, • outweighs in his favour such evidence as was given for the defence of inefficient work justifying dismissal. The question is what notice under the circumstances was plaintiff legally entitled to receive? In the case

of Wood v. Wellington Woollen Co. (N.ZiL.R. -XIV>296); Sir James Prendergast, Chief Justice, after reviewing the various authorities, stated the law to be that “where there is a gen-

eral hiring at yearly salary, and the- service continues alter the first year,- the hiring becomes; one ( from yean to year, and does not, (as in the first year) expire at the end of the current year, yrithout- notice, but is determinable only by a reasonable notice expiring at the end of the current year.” In the present case, three and a-half months remained of the current year’s service. The bowling season—the busy time—was over for the year. The three and a-half months covered most of the greenkeeper’s slack period, and plaintiff’s salary was payable in equal monthly payments. In my opinion the three and a-half months, expiring at the end, of the current year, would have been a reasonable notice. I give judgment for plaintiff fob £2), with costs. Costs totalled £6 18s, as follows: Court £2 6s, witnesses £1 10s, solicitor £3 2s.