A DISPUTED WAGES CLAIM.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12648, 8 November 1905, Page 7

A DISPUTED WAGES CLAIM.

The S.M. Court was occupied yesterday afternoon in hearing the defended case of T. W. Bell (Ma- iMcßetih) v. G. Ball, claim £2 13s 3d for wages alleged to be due in lieu of notice. Mr Stanford, S.M., occupied the Bench. Mr 'Mcßeth, iv opening the case for the plaintiff, said the facts were that on the morning of Thursday, September 14th, plaintiff went to work as usual at 2.30 a.m. and worked until 5.30, when ■he notified the foreman that he felt unwell and asked leave to go home. Leave was given him, and plaintiff, before leaving, offered to send a substitute to finish his morning's ■work.- The foreman said it was unnecessary to do so, as the main batcsh was through and they could manage the remainder without him. Plaintiff then left the bakehouse, and on his way home called on the secretary of the Union and told him that it might be necessary to find a substitute to fill his place next day. The secretary (Mir Young) "agreed to send his son. Plaintiff sent word to the foreman by his substitute that he was still sick and not able to come to work that (Friday) morning. Plaintiff's substitute worked on Friday and Saturday, and was paid by plaintiff for so doing. On Saturday plaintiff received a letter from Mr Ball stating that as he (plaintiff) had seen fit to treat him with contempt by neglecting to send any word or excuse for his absence, his services would not be ■further required. A cheque for the week's wages due was enclosed. Mr Mcßeth argued that although Mr Ball may not have known the reason of plaintiff's absence, and might consider that he had been treated with contempt, ■it was sufficient so far as plaintiff was concerned that he had duly notified the foreman and provided a substitute in accordance with the rules of the Union. The foreman was well acquainted with the facts, and the defendant, through him, should have been made aware of the true position of affairs. Evidence was given by the secretary ■of the Union and by the plaintiff, the latter stating that defendant had proved a good "boss" and had always treated ■him fairly. On a previous occasion when plaintiff had been off work through illness /Mr Ball (bad paid him his wages and had also paid his substitute. He objected to being summarily dismissed, as he had been, and could not understand it unless there 'had been something underhand going on of which Mr Ball was not aware. He had not considered it worth while to call and see the defendant after receiving * the notice* of dismissal, as he considered he had done -all that was necessary in sending a substitute. •

. W. Bishop, foreman in the defendant's Qmploy, gave evidence to the effect, that he gave Bell leave to go home on Thursday morning, Tvithout putting & substitute on on the distinct understanding that he would return to work next day. He did not do so, but sent a substitute, and the same thing occurred on the following day. Witness considered that defendant should have notified him of his inability to z-eturn to work in timo to allow of his making the necessary arrangements for the carrying 011 of th*» work of the bakehouse. It was not right to send no word and to simply send a substitute (who might not be a suitable man) at the ordinary starting hour. Had he done so he (witness) could have arranged for an earlier start. No matter how good a man a substitute might be, he could not be expected to be familiar with the routine of the bakehouse, and time was lost in. consequence. Mr Cuirie, for the defence, contended that an employer could not be bound by the rules'of the Union. Under the practice adopted by the plaintiff it meant that a man could go off from day to day, and, without giving his employer any notice, send any substitute be liked. This, hei.cpntended, was a serious mattes." for employ^rs^ and if the law recognised that position' they ought to be made aware of it. Mr Ball liad not defended the case with any desire to deprive the plaintiff of his rights, but simply as a matter of principle and.-to prevent the recurrence of similar treatment in the future. -"

In giving judgment, Mr Stanford, S.M., said it might be that ther%*were facts which had not come before him in evidence; but he could,onjy act on the facts presented. On the evidence it seenu ed to him that the plaintiff, in notifying the foreman and sending a substitute, had done all that She could be expected to do, and under those circumstances he could not understand his summary dismissal.

Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed,' less overtime claimed for, but not .-worked, with costs £2 6s.