TRAM OFFICERS DISMISSAL,

Auckland Star, Volume XLIX, Issue 187, 7 August 1918, Page 2

TRAM OFFICERS DISMISSAL,

ARREARS OF WAGES. ■Mr. Justice Cooper delivered judgment at the Supreme Court this morning in the action by William A. Rockland (Mr. J. F. W. Dickson) against the Auckland Electric Tramways Co., Ltd. (Mr. J. R. Beed, K.C., and Mr. W. D. Anderson), arising out of the plaintiff's dismissal last year from the position of motor inspector and instructor, and hie reinstatement after recourse to the Tramway Appeal Board. The' plaintiff claimed £55 19/1 arrears of wages from August 3, 1917, three weeks after he was dismissed, to November 5 folio-wing, when he was reinstated, with £39 6/8 costs of the appeal. The company, after his reinstatement offered, ex gratia, to pay the arrears of wages, tout rejected his claim for costs.

His Honor stated that an important question affecting tramway corporations and their employees was whether the reinstatement of an employee by an appeal 'board had a retrospective effect covering- the period of his suspension. [His Honor referred to the provisions for appeals in the Education and Railway Departments, hut held that they could not he used to interpret the appeal clauses in the Tramways Act. These merely provided that the decisions of an appeal hoard should be .binding on both parties, and "cnforcible in any court of competent jurisdiction." He held • also that the defendant company could not set up a defence justifying the dismissal, since the appeal hoard had already decided that the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed. He had no evidence as to the terms on which the plaintiff was engaged, but considered that he was certainly entitled, considering his duties, salary, and service, to more than a week's notice. Indeed, if a jury had held that three months was reasonable notice, he did not think that its verdict would have been disturbed. In his opinion, although he was not entirely free from doubt, the plaintiff was entitled to recover wages for the period of his suspension, less three weeks, for Which he had been paid. "I think," he added, ''that the intention of legislature was to give to the employees of a tramway company or authority, some measure of security of tenure in their employment, protecting them from an improper determination of their employment." The plaintiff, in his opinion,- was ; not entitled to recover the costs incur--1 red in relation to his appeal. He was under no statutory obligation to appeal, and had full right instead to sue for damages for wrongful dismissal. Juda--ment would be for the plaintiff for £55 19/1, with costs on the lower scale. I