SHEARING SUSPENDED

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 182, 1 May 1931, Page 7

SHEARING SUSPENDED

Wrongful Dismissal Claim MAORIS LOSE CASE A claim for wrongful dismissal brought by a gang of Maori shearer's against the owner of Tora Station was decided in the station owner’s favour by a reserved judgment delivered by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The case was one in which Parata and others claimed £3OO damages for wrongful dismissal from Eric Kiddiford, the owner of the'statiou. The evidence, the magistrate stated, showed that Parata was requested by defendant to get together a party of shearers to do the shearing on Tora Station. He got together a party of ten Maori shearers, and they started shearing on November 6. Rain fell about 4.15 on the. afternoon of the first day. There were plenty of unshorn" sheep under cover in the shed, but the manager was unwilling to turn out newly-shorn sheep in rough southerly weather, and he ordered shearing to stop for that day. A new mob was brought in next day, but after each,of the shearers had shorn two of these.Parata reported to the manager that the new sheep were wet. The manager disagreed, and eventually it was arranged to turn them out for an hour. On the mob being brought back to the yards, the shearers again stated that they were wet, and the manager contended that they were dry. The manager said to the men: “They are quite dry. Are you going to shear or not?” Parata replied, “No,” and the manager then, told them to pack up and go, and they did so. In reviewing the evidence, the magistrate stated that defendant's manager kept a rain gauge, and this showed that the total rain which fell was .02 of an inch, and that the sheep had been kept in surroundings favourable for drying. The manager, head shepherd, and wool-classer had all stated in evidence that the sheep were dry. The wool-classer had stated that the, sheep were perfectly dry with plenty of grease in the wool, but no sign of wet, and that he considered the men bad mo grounds for refusing to shear. ■ Upon the whole of the evidence.” Mr. Page stated in his judgment, “my, opinion is that the sheep were in fact dry and fit for shearing. . ‘ : ■ “There are, however.” proceeded the judgment, “a number, of matters elicited at the hearing which must be taken into consideration in deciding'the weight to be attached to the evidence .given by plaintiffs. “Plaintiffs had just previously done the shearing on defendant's Orongorongo station, and while there one of their number had been dismissed, but the remainder of them came on to Tora Station. Plaintiff Parata states that the shearers were annoyed, at shearing being stopped on Tora station the previous afternoon (the tithl. and that they had wanted to go on and cut out the sheep that were then in the shed. “On the morning of the 7th word went round among the shearers that they would not shear the,new sheep that were to come in during the day. This fact came to the ears of the head shepherd during the forenoon. The wool-classer also learned at 1.30 that the shearers had decided not to shear that afternoon, after the lot in the shed had been cut out. When Paratn had made his examination of the new line, he said to one of the defendant’s witnesses: “They’re dry; they’ll do me.’ Wineera, another of the plaintiffs. when asked by the manager why they would not resume shearing, had replied : ‘lt’s not only because they’re wet; there are other reasons.’ When asked for ; these other reasons, he had replied: ‘Circumstances alter eases.’ “These various matters and conversations.” the judgment proceeded, “cast a substantial doubt upon the evidence given by plaintiffs, and upon the bona-fides. of their action in holding up the shearing that afternoon. “The onus is on the plaintiffs to prove that they had reasonable grounds to consider the sheep wet. and upon a careful consideration of the whole case. I have come to the conclusion that the evidence falls short of establishing this.” At the hearing. Mr. Ongley appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. O’Leary for defendant ■ ■ -