CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10713, 20 December 1912, Page 5

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

SISTER MACKAY v. HOSPITAL* BOARD. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. In the Magistrate's Court at Maaterton yesterday } before Mr L. O. Reid, S.M., a case was heard in whick Estella Ma okay, until recently a nurso at the Masterton Hospital, claimed i'rom the Wairarapa Hospital and Charitable Aid Board a sum of £2O as damages for broach of contract; or, in the alternative, such. judgment between the parties as the Court shall, in equity and good con-

science, find. Mr P. L. Hollings appeared for the plaintiff and Dr Trimble for the defendant Board.

Mr Hollings explained the facts of the case, which he said were somewhat complicated —Miss Mackay had been a nurse at the Masterton Hospital for five years, and had not a stain upon her reputation. She had the entire confidence of the Conamifcjtee, the Board, and the staff. Sho i was entirely dependant upon nursJ ing for her living. She had been separated from her husband for some time, and had a child to maintain. On September 30th last, plaintiff wjw on night duty at the Hospital. Shewent away during the day to see her . mother, and while away she was tafc- ' en ill and was compelled to go to bed. JDr Cook had attended her, and was I prepared to certify to Mer illness. [The doctor had rung up in the evening, telling the matron of the condition of the nurse. On the following day, the matron apeared to be very annoyed at Sister Mackay being absent without leave. The matter was brought before the Hospital Committee by the matron. Without tiic* plaintiff being called, the complaint was dismissed by the Committee. On the very same day the matron made a complaint to the Hospital Board. which was then holding a special meeting to deal with another matter. She had also suspended Nurse Mackay under the by-laws. Without giving Nurse Mackay on opportunity of being heard, the Board had endorsed her suspension and sent her a letter, calling' upon her to resign. So annoyed was the Hospital Committee at what had occurred, that it refflgn|ed in a body. It was only on the. casting vote of the Chairman that the. Board had permitted the matter to be considered. The Chairman had taken the matter into his own hands. His Worship: I do not know thafc the actions of the Hospital. Board n* a body have anything to do with thecase. We are dealing only with an alleged breach of agreement. Dr Trimble said the whole matter referred to by Mr Hollings was irrelevant. Mr Hollings. proceeding, stated that on October 23rd the plaintiff received a letter from the Board, demanding her resignation, and giving certain rensons for the demand. The plaintiff subsequently saw the Chairman of the Board, and agreed to resign, |on condition that she was given n I mouth's pay in lieu of notice, ami a ! tesit'-ionial. On November 11th., the Secretary of the Board wrote to Nurse Mackay. stating that .it had agreed to withdraw tho letter of ! October 23rd. on condition that the I resignation was put in. This course was agreed to. and th A plaintiff thereupon resigned. To hsr intense surprise, she was informed on Decembor (sth that the Beard, could not yse its way clear to grant the month's notice'and a testimonial. Mr Hollings mentioned that a stigma had been cast upon his client, and she was ontitled to come to this Court to ask that she be cleared before the world. If it should be proved that sEb Lid lost her relief in law, he askeft -hat His Worship should deal with ttfe case _ in eouitv. The whole thing, Said Mr • ' Hollings'. has .been brought about by J the muddling of the Board, which, of it had'had any knowledge of local body jurisdiction,, would have fixed the'matter up without compelling hj:» client to come, to Court. At the last moment, after sendig the plaintiff a letter telling her that she was not ntitled to pay in lieu of notice, the Board lwd paid a month's wages into Court. .Mr Hollings contended that, in law, the plaintiff was entitled to three months' notice. The worst feature of the case was that the plaintiff, after being five years in the.bos- • pital, had been refused a testimonial. Dr Trimble: Oh, no, she's'not. She can get it on going to the office. Mr Holilngs. contended that it was. , ■ the duty of the Board to send a testimonial to the plaintiff. They should • not expect her to go on Her hands and knees to the Board. "If ever there was a case in which equity and good conscience should apply," said Mr Hollings, "tlu> is one of them." SISTER MAOKAY *N THE BOX. Sister Mackay, on oaXh, stated chat she had been for five years in the employ of the Masterton Hospital. She was dependent upon this work for her livelihood, and was the support of her mother's home. On 30th September she was on night duty. In the afternoon she was on her usual Icavo, when she was taken ill. She sent for Dr Cook. Witness was anxious about the matron, but Dr Cook agreed to communicate with tho Hospital. On the next day, there was a meeting of the Hospital Committee. Witness got no advice of this meeting, and was not asked to he On October 2nd witness received a letter from the secretary of the Hospital Committee, demanding an explanation. Dr Trimble objected to evidence . being given of facts that ocrurred prior to the making of the alleged agreement. If this line of examinai tion was to go on it might involve a goneral inquiry, in which the whole staff, a«* well as patients, would require to be called. Mr Hollings maintained necessary to give the facts leading up. to tho claim. ; His Worship said he did not wish

:o take, evidence on the question of , die suspension. He thought, how- J ,ver, that there should be reasonable ( atitudo in the ease. Mr Hollings stated that he was prepared to show that there was no ,ower under the regulations for the ] matron, to suspend the nurse. Witness, continuing, stated that on [Vtober 3rd she received a- letter From the Secretary of the Committee which she could not understand. A later letter notified Her of a meeting j of the Committee on October loth, to j ronsider her case. Witness though phvaicallv imfit, went to the Hosp.ta tint (lav She went to the door or the room in which the meeting was hold Air Bunting told her that she »,,„■ not required. That afternoon she went to Mr Kioth, Chairman o the Committee, and asked what had taken place at the meeting. She Wll < told that she had been exonerated hv the Committee. Witness then told Mr Keith that she had received „ letter from the matron, suspending her. Mr Keith said he could not understand the letter, as no question «f suspension had come belore the committee. Meetings of the ; Board bad thereafter .been held, to which she was not invited to be present. On October 23rd, witness received a. letter from the Secretary of the Boarc... stating that the suspension by the matron wis unanimously confirmed, calling on her to resign, and offering her the alternative of a public inquiry Witness saw Mr Eton, Cna»manof the Board, before she received the letter. He advised her strongly t have no inquiry. Hestated thru , she would get a month's leave of absence in lieu of notice, and «.*»£-} monial. Witness did nothmg ui the matter that day, but decided to see Dr Valintino in the matter. Dr V <uintine advised her not to hold a public inquiry, in case she prejudiced hei future. He offered her another position during the course of the interview Witness also saw Mjss MoLean and several members of the Hospital Board, who strongly v.vised lwr not to have an inquiry. Witness showed. Mr .Fisher (a membei of the Board) the letter she had received on October 23rd. Ho said he \ considered it was a slur upon her, and was not intended by the Board. She then wrote to the Board, complaining of the tone of the letter, but stating that sibo was willing to resign, if it was withdrawn. She also stated that if an inquiry were held she would be able t ovmdicato henselt. She told the Chairman (Mr Eton) that she would not send in her resignation while the slur was against her. Mr Eton asked what he could do. Witness replied ll»at she wanted the letter withdrawn. If this were dime, she would resign in the usual wa>; and ask for. a month's notice. MY Eton had stated that he wild noi withdraw the letter, which, he said, had been dictated by him. Hhe stated, however, that it contained eortani clerical errors. Mr Eton offered to modify the letter, but witness stated that she would not accept that, but would ask for an inquiry. Mr

Eton afterwards said that the Vtter could be withdrawn, on condition '/hat it was final. Mr Eton strongly advised witness to send in her resign a - nation, as it would prevent the throw r ing of mud. It was ultimately agreed that witness stibtiid send in a I'ttor, jiskincv for the withdrawal of the letter of October 23rd. "Witness then agreed'to resign, on condition that she Toee'vcd a testimonial, a month's salary in lieu of notice, and leave. Mr Eton had stated that the Matron had made pin-prick." that should f never have been taken out of ' j the hospital." Messrs Cameron and Fisher, who were • members of the Board. strongly | advised witness to resign. Mr 1 [ Cameron .stated that the refenenco in j the Board's letter to an inquiry was j not intended. On the strength of the conversations with and advice of member:/ of the Board, witness had resigned. Witness's sister was present during the conversation with Mr Eton. The members of the Board had sent to witness' house, asking if ''/ she could come down. She replied that she was in bed and could t.ot. Three members r>V the Board then came to her lioifse at Lansdowne. They stated that they wevo willing tn withdraw the original % letter, and they brought with them a type-writ-ten form of resignation. The •-, utter then got into the public papers, and notwithstanding this fact, witness felt in honor l>ound to send in her resignation. She sent in her resignation relying upon the Board' to carry out what it had ' promised through the Chairman. The Board accepted witness' resignation; and sent her av letter refusing to grant her a mouth's < salary. Mr Hoi lings: Was there any charge against your conduct in the Hospital, to warrant vour resignation? 'Witness; Absolutely nothing at all! J Witness, continuing, , s!l i c ! it was usi ual 'for hospital nurses' to receive a j rrnnt!]'.- holiday every year, ft w -as j also usual to give a month's pay in

lieu of notice;, and to give a. testimon- j ial. Witness's salary was £7O per I year. Witness was sure that she . colild not get another position without n testimonial. She had now \ been offered a testimonial, nor had I .she been offered a month's salary. Cross-examined by Dr Trimble, witness stated that sue had suffered pain before she left the hospital. She had bold the nurses and the matron of this. She did not tell the matron that she was unlit for sen-ice. She did nob consider it her duty to do so. She had not returned to duty after first leaving. Wituess was, at present absolutely unaware of the charge? made against her by the matron. Did you ask Dr Valintino?—! did not. Did vou ask Mr Eton?—Mr Eton told mo some of the charges, but said they were not the complaints before the Board. ' Witness, under further cross-ex-amination, stated that Dr Valintine merely wanted to protect witness in her profession, and she attached great ( weight to his advice. Witness' objecbTin seeing Mr Eton was to ascertain what was done at the mooting. When witness wrote agreeing to resign on condition that the letter was withdrawn, «he "'as advised that it was not necessary to mention anything about salary or testimonial. Wit- - noss had been advised by Mr Eton to see several members of the Board. T)r Trimble: During the month of November did you consider yourself in the employ of the Board?-T did! Did vou do any private mirsmg during that month?—J did not. I Did vou not do nursing at Mr Mcdated my letter November 30th, and T went to Mr McCug 0,-'<. on the afternoon, of that cUy. ' Have von nnplied at the office of the ' Hospital Board for either vour salary or your testimonial?-! have "'Reexamined by Mr Rollings witness stated that it was usual tor a ' testimonial to be sent to a hosp.tal ~ r o ;i.id not called for. DP, COOK'S EVIDENCE. PcM-oival Kobert Cook, medical practitioner and honorary surgeon to tV Masterton Hospital, deposedthat, S he had attended the plaintiff on SepI timber 30th. He promised Nurse j McKav that he would report the matter to the matron, and he. did so at / ] o'clock that evening. The matron had rung up witness on the following ! morning and stated that Sister Mci Kav should have returned to the Hos--1 pital. Witness replied that there was nothing to prevent the sister returning, but not to work. Tt was the usual practice to give the nurses a month's holiday every year. The condition of Sister McKay was such that she was not fit for duty. She was run down. .Dr Trimble: May not the matron have understood you, in. youT tele- «. phone message, to say that the nurse was .fit to return to duty? j Dr Cook: She may have done so "J but T meant that she was fit only to . ; return to the Hospital. In answer to the BencK, Dr Oook , <jtated that lie was not aware of the custom in regard to testimonials. THE HOSPITAL CHAIRM-M. ' James Bertram Keith., until lately chairman of the Hospital Committee,

stated that bo was present at a meeting on October 2nd. when the. matter of Nurse McKay was incidentally brought up. The matron' 9 suggestion was-carried out, and a letter was sent to Nurse McKay asking for a a explanation of her absence. Without witness' sanction or authority as chairman, a special meeting of tho committee was called for October 15th. Witness attended that meetin". ' A letter was received from Nurse McKay, and -l>r Cook was present. Tho committed finally accepted Nurse McKay's explanation as .satisfactory. The matron desired to introduce- 'other matters, but tho committeo would not permit it. Nurse McKay was. present at the meeting, but was not called. Witness subsequently received a letter from tho matron, 'stating that she had suspended Nurse McKay, under the regulations. Witnesy was surprised at receiving this letter. As a result of the Board subsequently taking the matter up, the committee resigned as a body, with the exception of one member. Jt was a rule at the Hospital to give the nurses' one month's holiday Ux every year on full pay. Witness did not know the rulo in regard to testimonials. Cross-examined by T)r Trimble, witness stated that it was not tho actual treatment of the committee over tho one case that caused the committee to resign. SrSTER ALLEN. Sister Mice B. Allen stated that •she had recently been senior sister in tho Mastorton Hospital. On the evening of September 30th, witness received, a message frwi J)r Cook over the telephone, and communicated the message at once to the matron. 1> Cook stated that Sister McKay was very ill at her mother's house, and could not return to t-lw Ho'V'tel. Work at the Hospital was very strenuous. Tt was usual for nurses to have a month's holiday every vear on full pay. The matron had promised Sister McKay her holiday in October. Tt was usual to send testimonials to nurses before they left.- Witness received a testimonial wHon she left the institution, although she did not ask for it. I3v ]")r Trimble: Witness was not aware that Sister Mnckay had been "•ivon n holiday earlier in the year. THE SISTER'S SISTER. O-.M-tnule T)rumm, sbtcv of tho plaintiff, corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff concerning the two interviews held ••'ith **'■ Eton She stated that Mr Eton had promised that a testimonial would be given, and the month's salary paid if the resignation was put in. Witness asked, Mr Eton what he would <lo if it wa.t. his own sister, and Mr Eton'replied that, he would advise her to re-,-o- n \r,. -fiton bn.cl also said that the vliole trouble arose from a series of nin-orioks. This va< +b" cm so for tho plaintiff.

THE DEFENCE. Dr Trimble, for thp defendant, stated that it would be phown that no "on tract whatever had -been entered into Vtwoon the Board and the plaintiff. Tf an arrangement had been ODio to between Mr Eton and tlio I plaintiff, there was no.doubt that >t would khave been ratified by the Board. It was admitted that there was sonic sort of an understanding over salary, and iii view of this, a Tr.onth''-' salary had been paid into fbnrt. I)r Trimble referred to the importance of maintaining discipline in a hospital. He stated that the B.'.r.rd- had in n:> .ray opposed an inquiry. On the eontraty, it had sought the fid lest investigation. It. would 1)a denied that the chairman ' of the Board entered into anv such . agreement as that outlined by the ; plaintiff, Mi' Et:n fcr/l .taught' (Vriiite erroneously) that if the plaintiff resigned, she would be entitled to a. month's salarv in lieu of notice, la i::.v, the plaintiff was not entitled j t:> .'.aeh a payment, but, as the,chair- j man had apparently stated that she i was entitled to it,'the amount was j paid info Court. Up' till November 30th, no contract whatever had been cr.tered into with th p plaintiff, either ':'.' law or hr couitv. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. I Edward George Eton, chairman of the Wairafa'pa Hospital and Charitable Aid. Board, stated that he was present at a meeting of a committee of the Board on October 21st, to meet T)r Valintine and discuss questions of hospital administration. The matron's action in suspending Nurse .McKay came before that meeting, and the matron's action was upheld. A idav or two after the meeting, plaintiff and her pistev called upon witness and asked what had transpired at the meeting. Witness told her the nature of the reply that was to bo sent to her. Sister McKay said she considered this was very hard, a<i -die wa.s making a living from nursing. Witness did not dictate the renly. She asked what about seeing Dr Valintine. and be advised her to do so, ) as he had been present at the meeting. Nothing was said about pay at the first interview. After she had .seen Dr Valintine, she called again upon witness, fji company with her sister. She stated that "Dr Valintine had advised her to resign. Tho | nurse then asked, "What about the letter?" Witness «iid he could not - . do anything about that, as tho matter would have to come again, before the Board, Witness told her that ?h.& could have a public inquiry, according to the conditions stated, in.' tlie Board's letter. - Witness told th« plaintiff that, in the circumstance!?, he thought it better for her to resign. He had absolutely no idea, in .making this suggestion, of'hushing the matter up. Ho solo reason was that Or ter "P. Hip sole reason was that Dr Valintine ha<l promised to find the plaintiff another position. The plaintiff a-«ked, "What about mv wages?"