CLAIM BY DOCTOR

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21967, 16 December 1936, Page 16

CLAIM BY DOCTOR

ptago Hospital Board As Defendant

RADIO THERAPEUTIST'S CONTRACT

(PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) DUNEDIN, December 15. Charles Francis de Monchaux proceeded against the Otago Hospital Board, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., to-day, claiming £43 8s 6d as salary for one half month, less two days. The plaintiff was formerly a radio-therapeutist at the Dunedin Hospital, but for some months he has been in Sydney. The statement of claim set out that an agreement had been made between the defendant and the plaintiff ■whereby the plaintiff was engaged to serve the defendant board for three years from May 7, 1931, and thereafter until three months' notice of desire to terminate the engagement should be given by either party, one calendar month's holiday to be allowed in each year. In 1934, with the concurrence of the defendant board, the plaintiff •went abroad for research work, and it was agreed between the parties that upon his return his services should be continued for a further two years. He resumed his services in February, 1935, and about Februa-y 14, 1936, the defendant board agreed to allow the plaintiff to terminate his engagement in six months. On April 22 the plaintiff gave three months' notice of his desire to terminate his engagement, and, with the concurrence of the defendant board, his services ended on July 29, 1936, but he received payment until July 31, 1936. The plaintiff was allowed one calendar month's holiday during the period February, 1935, to Julv. 1936. Before the cessation of his services, the plaintiff applied for two weeks' holiday leave and payment therefor, but this was refused. The claim was for salary for one half of a calendar month's salary, less two days (July 29 to July 31). John Jacobs, secretary of the Otago Hospital Board, gave evidence about the contract of Dr. de Monchaux's service. He said that the plaintiff was given permission to travel abroad on condition that he gave a further two years' service to the board on his return, and that he procured a satisfactory locum tenens as well as forgoing the increments provided for in the contract. During his absence, the witness said, the plaintiff was annoyed at not receiving the increments, and expressed his annoyance in letters to the board, wihch refused to reopen the case. At his request, the plaintiff after his return served the board for a little more than five months, and later accepted a position in Australia. When he appeared before the board with his application to be released from the contract, he had not raised the matter cf his fortnight's holiday. The board had met him in every way. The magistrate reserved his decision.