CROWN DEFENDS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 150, 28 June 1933, Page 8

CROWN DEFENDS.

EMPLOYMENT BOARD FORMER MEMBER'S CLAIM >. WRONGFUL DISMISSAL ALLEGED. Wrongful dismissal from the Unem i ployment Board in 1931 was alleged bjj v ai former member of the board, George - Finn, company -manager, of Auckland s against the. Crown yesterday, and the q hearing: was continued before Sir e Justice Reed in the Supreme Court this 3 -morning. Damages of £391 13/4 were - claimed. Finn was not appointed a ' member of the new board, which was J reconstituted under the Unemployment .Amendment Act, 1951. His Honor - reserved his decision. ' Mr. P. Rico appeared for the sup--1 pliant, and the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. i V. R. Meredith, defended the action. Finn said that he was appointed as ' a Government representative on the f Unemployment Board by the GovernorGeneral for a period of two years, from - November 20, 1930, and that he gave up ' position- at £800 a year to join the i board. Suppliant held "office as a moni- *■ ber of the board from November 20, r 1930, until July 31, 1931. He alleged . that from July 31, 1931, he was wrong- ■ fully dismissed. While a member of the L -Unemployment Board his remuneration s as a member, and exclusive of his travelling -expenses, was £332 12/10. ' r Mr. Rice said that a section of the < Unemployment Act which ■ covered remuneration at tho time of Finn's appointment had since been repealed, but at that time the -section said that members of the board should' be paid l such allowances as should be. approved by tho Minister of Finance, in addition , to travelling expenses. Finn had given ' up a position at £800 a year to join the board. ' Judge's Questions. His Honor: Do you say he gave up £800 a year for that? Mr. Rice: He did, sir. Counsel said that the members of the board were paid £2 2/ for each meeting , of the board they attended. His Honor: Now, just let us see where we arc. If tho Minister had said that half a cro.wn a meeting should be paid, would ho have been justified? Mr. Rice: Presumably, sir; but he only approved the payment. Ho did not fix it. His Honor: Well, who did fix it? Not the board itself? Mr. Rice: Not the board, sir. Sympathy From Minister. In evidence Finn said that at a meeting of the board ill July, 1931, tho then Minister of Labour, the Hon. S. G. Smith, who attended, told the members that hewas sorry that their engagements had been terminated. He had said it was not his doing; but that of Cabinet. He expressed''sympathy. • • Since suppliant had lost Iris position on- the -board he had ■looked for work, but had been unable to obtain- a- position,- -nor did he- have any prospects of finding one. Cross-examined by Mr. Meredith, witness said that when he resigned from the company his placo was- taken by Mr. Smith, the secretary. Mr. Meredith,- So that the company did not replace you with another man? \V~itiicss: No. What emolument did Smith receive for . tho job?-—I don't knows But ho acted as manager, and for a time you received £200 a year for acting in an advisory capacity ?—Ycsi It was not for . monetary advantage that you left,a position at £800 a year to join the Unemployment Board? —No. You would not have contemplated that the remuneration from tho board would bo the equivalent of that from the company?— No. Board Sat "Day After Day." How was the £332 you earned arrived at?— Two guineas a day while we were engaged on the work. His Honor: And the sittings of th.c board continued day after day? Finn: Day after day. After quoting various legal authorities in support of his client's claim, Mr. Rice said that Finn was not entitled to payment in respect of his oflice, because he was dismissed from it, but lie was entitled to damages. Parliament's Intention. Mr. Meredith contended that the oflice of Finn had been abolished by the 1931 Amendment Act which set up a different board in character and with different functions. His Honor: Must I not assume that the House of Representatives would not deliberately break a contract without providing compensation for the person put aside? One must start with the assumption that legislation would not do anything that would amount to dishonesty. They would not do something that would deprive a man of oflice without compensation. Can you find me any English case in which a person has been deprived of office without any compensation ? Mr. Meredith: I can find no English case, but there is a Canadian one which is on all fours with the present case. There is an English authority which says that a court of law has no right to deal with such a matter as this and that the matter should not be discussed. The remedy is a matter of petition to the Government and not to a court of law. His Honor: I am not pre-judging the case at all, but it strikes me that tne Court should not treat a statute as being passed with tho result of an injustice being done and upsetting a contract deliberately entered into by the Legislature with an individual. Mr. Meredith: We contend, of course, that there was no contract. Provision for Payment. "When tho board was abolished on July 31, 1931, the eight members of tile" board ceased to bo members," continued Mr. Meredith, "and no members of tlie old board were appointed to the new board with tlie exception of Mr. i Bromley. Under the old Act, the only provision for the payment of members of the board was a section which said that members shall be paid such remuneration as shall be approved by the Minister of Finance. In the amended Act, it was laid down that the deputy-chairman should bo paid £400 a year and the other members £300, in addition to travelling expenses." Further contentions by Mr. Meredith were that even although the office was abolished, the suppliant held office only at the pleasure of the Crown and was dismissible at will. It was also claimed that the suppliant's remuneration as a member of the board was entirely within the discretion of the Minister of Finance. Numerous legal authorities in support of his contentions were quoted by Mr. Meredith. (Proceeding.) " r