BANK MANAGER’S CLAIM.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 August 1921, Page 5

BANK MANAGER’S CLAIM.

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. IMPORTANT POINTS DECIDED. ’ By Telegraph— Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. Mr. Justice Salmond gave judgment in the Supreme Court to-day on preliminary points raised in the case in which Arthur Charles Thynne, bank manager, Morrinsville, claimed £2OOO from the Bank of Australasia for alleged wrongful dismissal. The case, which was a special one, stated for the determination of the Court involved two questions: (1) Whether the engagement of plaintiff was properly terminated; (2) Whether plaintiff was entitled to receive any contributions paid by him to the provident fund. With regard to the first question, His Honor held that it depended upon the interpretation and effect of the agreement of service, and as to whether the agreement provided that service might be terminated by notice in writing by either aide, or by the paying of a month’s salary in lieu of notice. This being clearly provided, the dispute turned on the meaning of the term salary in the agreement. Plaintiff was in receipt of a fixed salary of £320, with a house allowance of £52, and on terminating his service he was paid one-twelfth of. £320 (one month’s salary), thus disregarding the house allowance. Plaintiff contended that in assessing a month’s salary payable to him it should be based on the total annual remuneration, and he contended that ihe salary should be the wage exclusive of any allowance. His Honor added: “I am satisfied the bank acted constitutionally, and that the term “salary” does not include the whole of the emoluments. Salary must be distinguished from allowances; allowances are in the nature of reimbursement, aad an example is a traveller’s allowance and the allowance paid to a Defence officer.” His Honor held that the salary, therefore, was that sum which plaintiff was entitled to receive as a nominee only, and that in excluding the allowance the bank had acted in accordance with the contract between the parties. With regard to money- contributed to the superannuation fund, His Honor was of opinion that plaintiff had not a claim to this. The rule of the fund provided for plaintiff remaining in the • service of the bank for a certain time, and the bank had a right to dismiss plaintiff from its service a short time before he had reached rhe ag« when he was entitled to participate in the benefits of the fund. It would be an obvious consideration, observed His Honor, for plaintiff to have received any benefit, as all the servants of the bank joined in contributing to the fund on the terms that it would be distributed in the manner and according to tho conditions prescribed in the rules. “Even if the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed he had no claim on the fund.” concluded His Honor. The determination oi these points of Jaw disposed of the whole action. Costs were allowed defendant.