DISMISSAL OF DRIVER

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22413, 28 May 1938, Page 16

DISMISSAL OF DRIVER

AUCKLAND BAKERY DISPUTE EMPLOYER’S ACTION UPHELD DECISION OF TRIBUNAL (PMERS ASBOCIATIOM TRUSQBAIt.) AUCKLAND, May 27. The opinion that the employer was clearly justified in exercising ins rignt to dismiss the driver over whom a dispute arose at the bakery of G. KMathieson, Ltd., Mount Eden, early this month, was given in the decision released by the tribunal set up by the Minister for Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) to consider the case. The tribunal, consisting of Mr S. L, Paterson S.M., of Hamilton (chairman), Mr W Newton, of Wellington, formerly Secretary for Labour, and Mr S, Tyson of Auckland, former Inspector ot Factories, heard evidence on behalf of both parties to the dispute. , In its decision the tribunal stated that it had been asked to consider whether the employer was justified in dismissing the driver concerned. After traversing the evidence in detail, the tribunal, referring'to the witnesses lor the employer, said: “We observed these witnesses carefully, and after due consideration, consider that we have n 0 reason to disbelieve their evidence, and we are forced to the conclusion that the reason for the driver’s dismissal was the careless and unsatisfactory way in which he was carrying out his duties, and that his conduct in this respect was detrimental to his employer’s interests. We are further of the opinion, from the evidence, that the driver's, discrepancies in cash ana bread were caused by his neglect and carelessness, and were not due to any defect in the system.” ... .. Discussing the allegation that the driver was dismissed for calling a meeting of drivers, the tribunal said there was no evidence whatever to substantiate this, and the allegation appeared to be based on pure assumption. The tribunal further considered that there was no evidence to establish the allegation that the time-sheets had been falsified. Two Points of Law

“la conclusion, there are two matters of law to which reference should be made,’’ the tribunal added. “It is a well-known and long-established principle of the law of master and servant that where the contract of service is subject to some stipulation, either expressed or implied by custom enabling .either to determine the contract by notice, then % either party may at any time determine the contract by giving the requisite notice. In this case the drivers’ award, which governs the contract of service between Mathieson and his drivers, provides in clause 8 that any engagement may be terminated by a week’s notice of dismissal or resignation, given by the employer or the worker. “This, however, is not to prevent the summary dismissal of the worker for misconduct. In dismissing the driver concerned Mathieson acted strictly within his rights, aud within the provisions of the award, and to that extent was clearly justified in exercising his right. It is true that he did not give a week’s notice, but he did what was equivalent thereto; he paid a week’s wages in lieu of notice. This was in accordance with the decision of the Arbitration Court in the Auckland Electric Tramways’ case.” The tribunal added that it was also a well-established principle of the law of master and servant that negligence, incompetence, or conduct which might seriously injure the master’s business, constituted good grounds for dismissing a servant without notice, particularly if the conduct complained of was habitual. In this case it was considered that the facts concerning the driver’s incompetence or negligence in his work were sufficient to constitute good grounds for his summary dismissal. The tribunal said it could not give any real weight to the statement handed in by Mr L. G. Matthews, secretary of the Auckland Drivers’ Union, and signed by 57 customers formerly served by the dismissed driver, stating that they were satisfied by the service he had given them. It was easy to obtain such documents, and no opportunity was afforded the employer to check it or cross-examine upon it, nor could it outweigh the positive evidence placed before the tribunal. The document might also be tainted by other interests of the driver, to Which some reference had been made in evidence.