ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2977, 19 December 1925, Page 2

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS

At yesterday’s local sitting of' the S.M. Court, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., King and Waters (Mr Ongley) proceeded against F. S. Easton (Mr Berg-in) on a claim for damages for alleged wrongful dismissal. Mi- Ongley outlined the ease at some length, and stated that the plaintiffs had been engaged by defendant and later had been dismissed without proper notice.

Albert Waters, share-milker, in evidence, stated that on 15th May last, in partnership with King, witness started share-milking on defendant’s property. There was no agreement as to the length of term arranged, although defendant promised one at the time. The only mention made of this was that defendant told (hem they would have more money at the end of the year than they had ever had in their lives before. Started off on an agreement that they should receive 5/in (lie £, Imt this was later changed lo (>/S in the £ and half the calves and pigs. Two days prior to dismissal defendant showed a man through the house they were occupying, Trouble first arose with a man named Fletcher, over a gate that King had left open. The matter was reported to defendant, who told witness that he did not want any quarrelling and if they could not agree they had better get out. Witness later asked young Jellyman if he had reported the matter to defendant. He admitted lie had carried a tale about King to Fletcher and witness told him that if he kept, his tongue quiet they would all get Oil much better. They parted good friends. Witness was surprised to receive a notice telling them to get out. Witness was not present when defendant told his mate on the same day that they would have to go. Witness and his mate milked that night as defendant and Mr C. Hunt promised that they should get paid tor this work if they did it and delivered the cream in the morning. This was done but they were not paid. Expected to clear £6 per week each over the 12 months period. Had done all the dirty work and were looking forward to a good season. Milked 84 cows. Witness was out of work about a fortnight after being dismissed, before getting a job

again. To Mr Bergin: Defendant employed them. On the factory returns they received one-third. No area of land was stipulated. Was of opinion they could have milked 120 cows oil tlie property in the summer time. Based the estimate that they would receive £6 per week on what the other share-milkers were getting. If necessary they would have employed a boy. Admitted being warned about squabbling. After warning had gone to Jellyman’s cowshed and spoke to W. Jellyman about carrying tales. Felt like “cracking” him tor doing so. Re-examined by Mr Ongley, witness stated that there was enough land to run the cows on decently. They were promised another paddock- of GO acres with which they could have milked 120 cows easily. Witness spoke to Jellyman with a view fo finding out if it was he who was carrying tales. .John King, share-miker and partner of Waters, gave eorroboarlive evidence, and stated that they got practically nothing for the first, part of the year, but were expecting a good season. They were dismissed just as the good season was commencing. Outlined the trouble with Fletcher and said that as a result o| witness leaving the gate open the horses had got out, hut witness had assisted Fletcher to catch them. They were all good friends after the trouble had blown over, however. After receiving the dismissal, Jellyman sent 1 , said there was no row at all and he would give the person telling lies a good hiding. Witness did not know of any reason why they should have been dismissed. Was out of work six weeks after being dismissed. Fletcher reckoned they would get £G per week over the whole year. To Mr Bergin: Had never totalled up what they had received while on the properly. Defendant made them a small loan and guarntecd their .store account when they first startl'd Fletcher was second boss on the farms. There was nothing in a complaint made by Fletcher about the way witness had driven a horse belonging to defendant. At the time of

the trouble over the gate being left open, Fletcher told witness that defendant had placed him as supervisor over the share-milkers. Witness said he would not be bossed by him. Never knew lie was a supervisor until after defendant told him after the trouble. Defendant told witness that he would sack the best of men if they quarrelled, but did not think that he was making any reference to them. All the other share-milkers got a month s notice prior to dismissal. The S.M.: You knew before you went to Easton's that share-milkers received a month’s notice before dismissal 1 ? —Yes. And you expected the same treatment?—Yes. lte-examined by Mr Ongley, witness said that defendant made no mention of Fletcher being a supervisor when they were engaged. When defendant told witness Fletcher was a supervisor he was quite prepared to do his bidding. W/ould have been quite satisfied if they had received a month's notice. Thought it hard to be dismissed after working the poor months. Hardly cleared expenses. This concluded the case for the plaintiffs.

The S.M. said that he did not :hink the failure to give a month’s notice justified a claim for £IOO lam ages. There did not appear to ,c much misconduct, however. He suggested that the ease be settled with the payment of a small sum. Mr Bergin contended that the defence would disclose evidence of serious misconduct.

The first witness for the defence, William Jellyman, was then called and in evidence stated that he worked for his father, who was a sharemilker on defendant’s property. Knew plaintiffs. Had had trouble with King. Witness reported the trouble to Fletcher, who was the supervisor of the farms. Also related what occurred on the day Waters accused witness of carrying tales to Fletcher, and said he (Waters) would get his revenge if he had to wait a lifetime. There was no reason for Waters to go over to witness’s place nil that occasion. Fletcher was sent for when witness returned after the argument. Witness was uneasy aimut the quarrelling as he knew that someone would have to go. Witness was also harrassed by plaintiff. To Mr Ongley: Talked to Waters for a good half hour. Waters told witness how he met King after referring to witness’s carrying tales. Witness was frightened to leave Waters. “He might have ‘cracked’ me and he might not have,” he said. Mr Ongley: Why didn’t you call out to your father? He was near by. —“He would have wanted to know why I wasn’t getting in the cows and would have ‘cracked’ me.” (Laughter). The S.M.: I don’t think this is terribly serious. Waters did not go to Jellyman’s to pick a quarrel, but merely to remonstrate. A man is surely entitled to tell another to stop carrying tales. If young Jellyman had wanted to get away and get the cows in, he could easily have said so! As a result of his carrying talcs defendant had gone to Waters and King and warned them about rowing. All that Wlaters did was to tell Jellyman to stop telling tales. Mr Bergin: This sort of thing has a serious effect on the employer’s business.

The S.M.: Very little to-day. Mr Bergin contended that Waters had no right to go over to Jellyman’s and pick a quarrel during working hours. If it was a friendly remonstration, as suggested, why did he not make it when all parties were together earlier in the afternoon?

The S.M.: This does not amount to a quarrel. It was only natural that Waters would speak to the boy by himself. ’ Frederick Spencer Easton, the defendant, in evidence, said that he employed plaintiffs as sharemilkers. It was an understood thing that he could dismiss them immediately and that they could leave immediately. “A man’s a fool,” he said, ‘ to he bothered with share-milkers.” He would lock up his places, continued witness, and concluded by saying “You can’t do a thing with the law up ..against you.” The S.M.: You haven’t got the law up against you. You evidently did not make it clear about, giving notice and if you leave a thing indefinite you can’t blame the law. Witness: Agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Continuing, he said “I said ‘immediately.’ 1 take my word lief ore theirs. As a. man of the country iny word should he taken before both plaintiffs.” Air. Bergin said that lie relied solely on the fact that the master was entitled to dismiss employees for failing to obey his command to stop quarrelling, tl was a reasonable and lawful command and had been disobeyed after warning had been given to plaintiffs. Mr. Ongley: There was no disobedience whatever. It was young .Jellyman’s tale carrying and exaggerations that caused the whole trouble.

The S.M.: Notice should have been given. Defendant, howevex, warned plaintiffs to stop quarelling, and he did not doubt that Waters went to remonstrate and give the boy a friendly warning. The boy admitted that. There was no disobedience in that. Plaintiff's were aware that defendant had dismissed employees on all sorts of notices ranging from one day to three months. As a result of being dismissed one plaintiff had lost 14 day's work and the other six weeks. He should not allow judgment for the full month because, although plaintiff's had not wilfully discharged the command not to quarrel they must have known that their actions in accosting Jellyman was just as likely to cause trouble. Judgment would be given for £25 with costs.

Mr. Bergin on instruction from his client asked for security for appeal. The S.M.: What on?

Mr. Bergin: A point of law or it may be a general appeal. The S.M.: Very well! If you are going to appeal I will find that there was not sufficient misconduct to justify dismissal. What chance have you got then? Security was fixed at £2O and the amount of judgment, £3l 5/-.