BROKEN CONTRACT ALLEGED.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20104, 6 December 1930, Page 9

BROKEN CONTRACT ALLEGED.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. Contending that Chi'istchurch Cinemas, Ltd., had contracted, after a period of tuition during which he was to receive no pay, to give him employment as an assistant operator at i~4 15s a week, and that the company had failed to do so, but dismissed him, Charles Noel Mills, _motion-pio ture operator, claimed £SO damages l'rom the company for alleged breach of contract in the Magistrate's Court yr-.ste.rday. Judgment was given for the defendant. Mr K. G. Archer appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. S. Thomas for tlio defendant company'. Mr H. A. Young, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr Archer said the plaintiff was a talkicvprojectionist, who had been employed by the defendant company. The arrangement was that he was to work for nothing; while he was learning the job, and that he was to receive employment when he was proficient. After working for some time the plaintiff had been dismissed. There was no award for the operators. It was the custom of the defendant company for the work in the operating boxes to be done by two men; a chief projectionist and an assistant. Both operators had to b© in the box all trie time, as there were two machines which worked alternately. There was usually a third man in the box, who put on records and ■ did other jobs of ■i minor nature. That job was usually doi»e for nothing, on the understanding that the man was to receive employment as nn operator after he had become proficient, and it was on that basis that plaintiff had been engaged. He was told that he would be given a permanent position after six weeks or two months. He started on March | 3rd and bv the end of April he asked 1 for '.i job as assistant-projectionist, as hu considered he was then competent. At the end of August he was given a job at £3 a week, instead of £4 15s as n-omised, and nine weeks later was dismissed. He was told that it was be en use the company was cutting dowu its st-iff but he had reason to doubt that. The plaintiff was a married man with three children. During the time be was with the company >e received onlv £27—£3 a week for mno weeks! His claim for £SO was a moderate one. He did not , as k for wnges, but for damages for breach of was given by plaintiff which bore out the statement of coun- .. seL

The Z>efence. Mi- Thomas said that there were always a large number of applicants for I projectionists, and there were always j more applicants than positions. In other parts of New Zealand the learner was allowed into the box, but he was not actively taught and he paid to go into the box, so that he could watch. In Christchurch Cinemas' theatres they did not have to pay to go into the box, and the chief projectionists were instructed to teach the ''learners." The only basis on which learners were ever taken on was that when the learners were efficient, and when their turn came, they were given a job. They were at liberty to leave at any time Sometimes they became projectionists after a short period, if it so happened that there was a job vacant, but at other times they had to wait a longer period. When one of the operators in the Liberty Theatre went off because of sickness, Mills was put on during his absence at the same wage, £3 a week. When the man came back, the slump had begun, and as there was no prospect of a job, and the company had to consider cutting down its staff. Mills was given a week's notice, as it was not considered fair to keep him on with no wages. "I am satisfied that no contract as set out in the statement of claim was entered into in this case," said - the Magistrate after hearing evidence for the defence. "Judgment will be given for defendant."