DISMISSED

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20270, 12 August 1937, Page 2

DISMISSED

ACTION AGAINST DENTIST. FINDING FOR DEFENDANT. NOT A QUESTION OF WAGES. (Times Representative). MORRINSVILLE, Wednesday. An interesting reserved judgment relating to certain provisions of the Finance Act, 1936, was delivered by Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, in a case in which Mr J. Molvor, Inspector of Awards, claimed a penalty of £25 from John Stewart Caulfield (Morrinsville) for the alleged wrongful dismissal of an employee. In the evidence given at the July sitting of the court it was alleged that defendant, a dentist, had dismissed R. G. Gamble, a dental meohanio, on account of the fact that he was bound to pay him £6 a week, instead of £5, which he was receiving. Gamble had sought to secure a rate of remuneration similar to that which he was getting in 1931. In that year Gamble and defendant had been employed by a dentist named Hannan. In 1931 Hannan had taken Caulfield into partnership but the former had since retired, leaving defendant in the business. Gamble had considered that, owing to the labour legislation of 1936, he was entitled to the rate of wages he had received in 1931 and had consequently interviewed the Labour Department. Defendant had later dismissed Gamble, stating that he could not afford to keep him. A chart produced in court had shown that the work done by the business had, in 1936, dropped 25 per cent below- that carried out in 1931. Immediately after his dismissal Gamble had laid a complaint to the Labour Department and the Inspector of Awards, purporting to determine that he was entitled to be paid at the rate of £6 per week as from July 1, 1937, and later he claimed £l9 5s as back wages. Acting on a letter from the Dist/rict Inspector of Factories, Caiulflelci had paid the amount claimed. Duties of Inspector. “It will seem that It Is the duty of an Inspector of factories under section 17 of the Finance Act, 1936, to decide any disputes arising as to the rate of remuneration of any person,” stated Mr Paterson. “This is a judicial duty and must be performed in a judicial manner. Both parties must be heard or at least be given an opportunity to be heard. From the evidence it appears that the inspector proceeded to decide the matter without giving defendant an opportunity of being heard and the inspector’s decision is therefore a nullity. “I think that whenever an Inspector of factories Is required to make a decision under this section It Is essential, and certainly more desirable, that there should be some record of the proceedings and of the decision, available for all parties and for production In the event of an appeal or for oourt proceedings. “Apparently the only ground for the Inspector’s decision that Gamble was entitled to be paid £6 per week was that he was receiving that rate in 1931. The fact that Hannan paid Gamble £6 per week, is not evidence that Caulfield would have paid him the same amount,” continued the magistrate. “Hannan’s business may have been fetter than Caulfield’s and it is clear from the chart that Hannan’s returns in 1931 were 25 per cent better than Caulfield’s in 1936 and it would appear that Gamble was doing 25 per cent more work in 1931 than in 1936. Another factor to be taken into consideration is that there was no opposition to the practice in 1931 and there was in 1936. In addition there was no standard rate of pay for dental mechanics in 1931 and the rate of pay Jhat Gamble was getting was higher than that being paid in the cities." Mr Paterson stated that he was satisfied that Gamble had been discontented and that he had not been dismissed by reason of the fact that under the Finance Act, 1936, he was entitled to an increase In the rate of his wages. It was unfortunate for defendant that he had not sought legal advice instead of paying the £l9 demanded by the Labour Department. Apart from the question of remuneration the magistrate was satisfied that defendant had bad good reasons for dismissing Gamble. Judgment was given to defendant with costs.