INDISCREET LETTERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 56, 7 March 1930, Page 8

INDISCREET LETTERS.

RESIGNATION OF DIREGTOR:

VOLUNTARY OR. COMPULSORY?

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

JUDGMENT. FOR COMPANY.

Tie opinion that the plaintiff- '.had. himself resigned from • the position ; of managing" director and had not been dismissed was expressed by the Chief Justice. (Sir: Michael Myers) at -..Wellington at the • conclusion of . a case ~ ;n, which Edgar Allen proceeded against Electro-, lux," Ltd., Wellington, fory £600 damages for "alleged wrongful dismissal. Judgment was given in favour of the defendant. . - ■ ~- .:"••:

Allen gave evidence that he wasJn Auckland in October, 1929, when'he roicived' a telephone message from' tlie secretary of the: company asking him to come to Wellington: immediately.. /. E'e did so, arid on his arrival was met-by the directors, who told him that various complaints had been received regarding liis personal conduct. They asked him what he intended to do. Mr. Jackson, managing director . for Australia and

N'mv Zealand, then remarked that unless lie resigned, he would be put out of the, organisation within 48 hours, and' pointed out . that it would be much, better, so far as witness' business affairs J vere concerned, if witness accepted the 1 fi'cr to resign. Witness asked for delay lo as. to get legal advice, but this was f.-t!fused. He was handed a draft letter of resignation, and then wrote out his resignation, omitting certain things from the draft. . * ' • : ' I > Mr. Willis:. Why did you actually tender your resignation?— They ■ insisted upon my writing it out so that it could lip forthwith entered in the minute book. Did it occur to you that it was unwigo to do so? —No, because I considered 1 was entitled to six months' salary. 1 Mr. White: Did not the discussion start through your being asked, if you' had been on too friendly terms with a 1 member of" the staff I—l denied 'that, ,

I jYou-threw- over thie young woman to ■letters were written, and I think she ■ went to Sydney ?—Yes.

. His -Honor:.: She •'was aan ember of the staff in New'- Zealand? ;,*}"

. ; jMr.- White: Yes. She was in Timaru. She w,ent •tp.Sydney arid.<' handed ■ the correspondence,, to \ Mr.. Jackson. •

Witn.ess:' The correspondence got there aiiy'how. '. , " ■

Mr.'•White: ' You were on friendly 'term's with a Mise —' —in Auckland? — I Svas/on' , -friendly terms : with the whole of;.iny;.stjEiff. ./:■■'■ ,; •'... ; ... ■■'*'~■, ■■•

■\ ; Now,Mfc;v Allen, shall I say'you were on more: 'friendly'terms with. Miss '( You.;frequently ..took her out to tea?— That was a; thing that was pretty general. throughout;-the whole organisation. It* was .started by Mr. Jackson. • That's all' right. . You are getting back to •Jick^6n.,agaih;—No, I'm not. i jYou. mdmit, you were friendly with all. the ladies'of,your staff. Did you take them all "but'.to, tea '—Whenever a. convention'was'held, the members of the staff .'.were usually taken to tea after - waids. y , ' ■: v That is ■ a different thing. Did you not make a : practice' of taking Miss ——- y tea?4-N0.... . : •' ;His.'Honor : Unless it proves, that the action.of the company was justified, I don't .think that matter'should be.gone .into, Mr. Willis. Willis:; There is. no. suggestion of misconduct or anything like that. His Honor (referring to . the; letters): They ddh't .contain . anything in the nature-of. what is ordinarily, regarded as indecent.' language. They are letters, | enough——• . : "But indiscreet," suggested Mr. Willis. His Honor: There is nothing in them that could be regarded as improper. Mr.'White: Just the scSul's awakening. . (Laughter.) . His .Honor:;-1- agree,, that they ought not to have .been written by the manager of; a-big staff. If =he had .been single the position.' would have been quite different^'Y ■' ' ' . v. No "further, evidence was called for the plaintiff." ; . . : / . Mi*.-Wh}te formally moved for a nonsuit; ; The. applictition was over-ruled by his Honor; . ; • . ' . "A:Demoralising Effect." John Leslie Griffen, public accountant, and', director-of .the defendant company, said he first, knew that complaints were being, made to the head oflice in Sweden regarding Allen's conduct in July, 1929. He had been informed that plaintiff had been .'guilty, of .misconduct in connection with the .company's affairs, principally because of t;the > demoralising .effect of his

relationship with some of the female employees. No complaint. had '... been, made to him that there was serious" impropriety. . Witness/after discussing the whole matter with Allen,, sent a cablegram to Sweden, stating that in'.the opinion of another,, director and" himself certain of plaintiff's actions were un| wise, but were not sufficiently serious to warrant his'removal. At the meeting.of directors Allen was asked /specifically" if he was satisfied that the answers given by him were correct. He replied iir the affirmative. . He. was then told of 'the correspondence held by the directors- and hje then admitted that some,of his-, vious answers had been untrue;.. It was pointed out to him that the matter'of resigning was in' his own hands. -After an internal for lunch, Allen asked to begiven another chance, but was told-that the directors no longer had confidence in him. After being told that the directors either had to accept his resignation or to report fully : .tp. Sweden,.Allen, handed in his '. /' '. His Honor's Decision. :' His Honor, after a lengthy, hearing; said' plaintiff obviously" could: not claini on the basis of wrongful dismissal, as he ihimself resigned voluntarily. .That, in itself, was sufficient to determine th'e case as ; far as the first cause of action was: concerned, but if he had to consider the> question. of, justification., he. was bound to come to the ..conclusion that if there had been a dismissal, it would have been justified, not necessarily, merely by the indiscreet letters 'which plaintiff wrote 1, to a lady member of the staff in the Soutjh Island,■although '.'. his' Honor was inclined to think they would have been sufficient in themselvea to" justify dismissal. , Defendant, gave answers to a number, of" specific questions which were "not truthful.. It-was quite possible that if he', had; giyeii truthful answers .he might have , been given the further chance f or^-which : he subsequently asked. '•..'■■■'• ''/'.;'_

"One has to look not' merely : at.the evidence," continued his Honor, "but. at the cumulative effect of the. action of plaintiff, including, of course, all -, that took place at interviews, in'.October. ;I am prepared to hold, and do hold,-that on both grounds -or on either ,of. v thein plaintiff is not entitled to recovery."' -

Regarding the claim,for a declaration that lie-was entitled to coramiseiori,- his Honor said that the audit certificate showed that plaintiff was not entitled'to anything, nor was there any contract, either expressed or implied,'in;regard to payment of travelling expenses.- v, V >

Judgment was entered, for..defendant, with costs. The counter-claim '■ for £17 10/10 was dismissed," with :; £s^s/-costs.