DISMISSAL JUSTIFIED

Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1931, Page 7

DISMISSAL JUSTIFIED

CONDUCT OF SALESMAN. “There is a duty implied on the part of every servant to be faithful in tlu discharge of his duties, and to be diligent in safeguarding his employer's in terests which are entrusted to him. In my opinion, the plaintiff has- entirely failed to observe those duties,” sai< Mr E. Page, S.M., when giving judgemnt yesterday for the Sawmillers Timber Trading Co., of Hamilton from which John Joseph Armstrong, formerly its Wellington representative claimed £lOl 5s for alleged wrongfu dismissal. Mr Page also gave judgment for the company in a counter claim for £ls, being three amounts o* £5 which it had been compelled to paj towards damage done to a car when i> was being used by Armstrong. After referring to three motor acci dents which Armstrong had had with the car within a short period, Mr Pag said that plaintiff had induced th> managing-director of one of the firm’ customers in Wellington to lend hir £2O. He had failed to repay the mone; at the time promised and had failed tf comply with certain conditions regard ing his personal conduct which ha been laid down on the granting of tin loan. “No doubt in ordinary circumstances the regulation of the private life of an employee may not he a matter for hi employers,” gfiid-Mr Page, “but in tin present case it becomes important if it - , effect was' to antagonise one of th firm’s customers, and it may throw some light on the extent of the plaintiff’s unauthorised use of the car.” Mr Page said that the evidence had made it abundantly clear that Armstrong had been making considerable unauthorised use of the car for his oun purposes. “Among the causes that will justify the discharge of a servant without notice,” continued the magistrate, “are: wilful disobedience of any uni wful order, or negligence in business or conduct calculated seriously to injure is master’s business. Here the plaintiff repeatedly disobeyed the explicit orders of his firm. Re imperilled on a number of occasions the safety of the firm’s ear hv driving it or allowing it to he driven under conditions which invalidated the insurance on it, and he jeopardi-ed the firm’s business connections with some of its customers. In mv opinion the conduct was incompatible with a continuance of the relationship; his dismissal was justified, and his action must therefore fail,”