APPEAL UPHELD

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 653, 3 May 1929, Page 9

APPEAL UPHELD

APPRENTICE DISMISSED ABSENCES FROM WORK A hairdressing apprentice had his appeal against dismissal from employment upheld by Mr. Justice Frazer, in the Arbitration Court this morning. William Double was the apprentice. He was represented by Mr. C. S. Leahy, who maintained that the boy had been dismissed through circumstances which he could not control. The employer, H. G. Sutcliffe, whose shop was in Upper Queen Street, said that Double had defaulted on several occasions. He said that Double, when he cut a finger at Christmas time, had stayed away at a busy period and had neglected to report to him directly. “He could have done odd jobs,” Sutcliffe said. “I was going to discharge him then. The way things were going, it was no good working together. At Easter I impressed on Double not to slip me up, but, on Easter Saturday, he did not appear, and I had great difficulty. Mr. Leahy said that Double had stayed away at Christmas because he was advised by a doctor, and, at Eastjer ho had gone with a party on Good Friday to Silverdale. The car had, owning to bad roads, been prevented from returning to Auckland in time. Mr. Leahy submitted that Double could not have prevented his absences and suggested that Sutcliffe had dismissed his apprentice in a fit of temper. His Honour said that Sutcliffe had no doubt been inconvenienced, but the court was not prepared to say that Double’s excuses were not genuine. If there had been deliberate flouting of express instruction, dismissal was warranted, but Double would have to be given the benefit of the doubt. At the same time it would be advisable for Double to be placed in another shop, as Sutcliffe and he apparently could not work satisfactorily together.