COUNCIL CRITICISED

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19895, 26 May 1936, Page 8

COUNCIL CRITICISED

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE. COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE. “AN EXTRAORDINARY ATTITUDE." Trenchent criticism of the letlon o' the Hamilton Borough council In dismissing In employee who had an attachment order made on his wages wee made In the Hamilton Magistrate’s court to-dey, when the Standard Trudlng Company applied for n Judoment against A. R. George. debtor. and the Hamilton Borough Council, sub-debtor. . Mr .-\. L. Tompkins. who Appeared for the Company. stated that an attachment. had been made against the debtor‘s wages. thr- dehior being an employee of the Borough Council. No money had been paid into Court. A. it. George stated that he was now on sustenance as he had been dismissed from the council on account of the attachment order. He added that he was a married man supporting nine children. the eldest of whom was H. and he had worked faithfully for the Borough Council for it years. He was a returned soldier ’snd had been shot in the head, chest .and leg and was feeling the effects tot his injuries. ‘ “unfair and Improper." " This is not the tlrsi time i hare heard of a Hamilton Borough Council employee tiring sunnnurily dismissed because he has tum-n unfortunate enough to get. into tll'i‘: - ~ni had an attsehment order inn: mainst his wages.“ commented .\ir 'l'nxnpkins. “it tappears to me that 11w council's acition is most unfair. Apparently it is ibecause they do not want any extra ibook-keeping in' tiWllli‘iißg from the 1 men‘s wages but it is a most improper istittude. especially for a public body. 1 “ The debtor is I believe. e good worker, and to dismiss him after it years‘ service because he is pressed by a creditor is very unfair.“ con- ‘ ciuded counsel. 1 Mr S. L. Paterson. SAL. who was i on the bench. told the debtor that he ‘shouid have gone to his creditor gt 1 explained his circumstances instead f ‘tgnoring him and the creditor might not have pressed him so hard. " Very Hersh Treatment.” “All the same I think that the council is taking up an extraordinary attitude for a local body." added His Worship. "To dismiss an employee who is unfortunate enough to get into dim-culties seems to me. a very harsh treatment and not one that fine could expect from a local authority." The clerk of the Court reported that £2 Us ad, representing what was due to the debtor. less £2 per week as wages. had been paid into Court by the council. Mr Paterson made an order for the payment or money out of Court to the company. commenting that under the present law he could do nothing else. However, a Bill was being introduced into Parliament giving the magistrate more discretion in such matters.