WRONGFUL DISMISSAL

Hokitika Guardian, 10 July 1930, Page 7

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL

GREYMOUTH, July 9

The Greymouth branch of Miller’s, Ltd, was in the limelight at the Magistrate’s Court to-day, when the ex-manager of the branch. Wilfred Adam Houston, claimed £B2 15s Id, al leging wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff was represented by Mr K. G. Archer, of Christchurch, and the defendant firm by M,r W. J. Joyce. The statement of claim set out that on or about March 25, 1930, plaintiff was engaged by the defendant company as manager of its Greymouth business at a salary of £6 per week and half per cent, commission on turnover; that in consequence of his engagement plaintiff travelled from Christchurch to Greymouth, and carried out his duties as manager uptii May 12, when his engagement was terminated bv the defendant compaiiy without sufficient notice or payment in lieu of notice. He therefore claimed one day’s wages for May 12, £1: three months’ wages in lieu of notice, at £6 per week, £7B; return railway fare to Christchurch, 15s lid; $ per cent, commission on £593, £2 19s 2d, a total of £B2 15s Id,

After hearing lengthy evidence, in giving his judgement, the S.M. reviewed the facts at length, and quoted the decision of Mr Justice Chapman in a practically similar case, Woolley v. Watson Bros., in which it was held that n’aintiff was entitled to three months’ notice. In the present ease, tho defendant himself had not given evidence. His Christchurch manager has done so, hut, admitted he was not present when Miller engaged plaintiff. Tt seemed to he very clear that plaintiff came to Greymouth in the belief that if lie carried on the business successfully as manager, he would he employed for at, least two years. No complaint had been made to plaintiff by Miller on the score of turnover, and that certainly was not the reason given for terminating the engagement. The reason was contained in Miller’s letter, to the effect that Blackgrove had offered to put capital into the Greymouth business on condition that he was appointed manager. Miller expressed appreciation etf plaintiff’s efforts during his management, and stated that under other circumstances he would he happy to have continued t<V avail himself of plaintiff’s services. Tho sole reason given by Miller for terminating the engagement was that it paid him to do so, and he had something better for himself, and he thought the opportunity was too good to allow it to puss. He terminated the engagement on grounds his own interests only, and having nothing whatever to do with the caporitv of plaintiff, l'f the defendanthad wanted to retain the right to dispose of plaintiff’s services at short, notiee, it was open to him to fix a definite term. He failed to do that, and therefore he was bound by the legal position. As Mr Justice Chapman had ruled, that meant plnintiffi was entitled to three months’ notice. Thirteen weeks had been claimed, and 12 would he allowed. Judgment would he given for plaintiff for £76 15s Id, representing -three month’s wages at £6 per week, and other items in the claim, the total to include the £3O 17s 2d already paid into Court hv defendant,. Costs amounted to £2 12s, and solicitor’s fee of £4 17s was also allowed.