DAMAGES CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 47, 18 November 1932, Page 3

DAMAGES CLAIM

Alleged Wrongful Dismissal WEIGHBRIDGE WORK Alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed, Herbert Hickling, a weighing machine foreman (Mr. A. B. Sicvwright) proceeded in the Supreme Court yesterday against W. and T. Avery (N.Z.), Ltd. (Mr. 11. F. O’Leary), claiming £5 wages due up to July 20, the date of his dismissal, and £lOOO general damages. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided. Plaintiffs statement of claim set out that he had an agreement, dated July--29, 1930, with defendant company for employment for a term of five years, at a salary of £7 a week. He had been dismissed on July 20 of this year, refusing to accept the defendants’ offer of the wages due to him at that time and £l4 in lieu of notice. Terms of Agreement. The defence admitted that plaintiff had beeu dismissed, but referred to the memorandum of agreement, which in clause 7 provided that the employment of plaintiff might be terminated by the company prior to the expiry of the term fixed in the case of any act of disobedience, insubordination, insobriety, dishonesty, or other misconduct. On July 19 plaintiff was instructed to commence the repair of a weighbridge ou the premises of the Westport Coal Co., Wellington, and it was alleged he efused to carry out such work. On July 20 he had again refused to carry out plaintiff’s case, Jlrwright said that Hickling had o vei 30 years’ experience of the scale business, and submitted that defendant company wished to get rid of plaintiff and engage a man at a lower salary. It yas felt that the company was against him, his powers as foreman had been gradually whittled down. Hickling; had been given instructions to undertake the overhaul of a 10-ton longing to the Westport Coal Co., ana it was submitted that he was dismissed because he asked to be all fu/opinion sei submitted that plaintiff titled to refuse such work. 1 Tinder cross-examination plaintiff not been Prepared Rossiter It was »° r VXa4) definitely in(the genera inaua ß e ) SSSTo Mr. Sleywright- The™ & dangerous without ke WGre ouly a n skilled worker, e■ _ job was a apprentice or impi fl ’ s bu nt on dirty one, as the brld e v . & reclaimed ground, where ™ good deal of seepage from the Expert OpinionAlfred Opeushaw Franklin, manager of the Auckland Scale Co., said iu his 31 vears’ experience of scale mechanic s work it was always customary to have two skilled men on the overhall of “ weighbridge. He would not take on such a job himself without as . s,s^/ ae ,’ 1 To Mr. O’Leary witness said he did “lidward 1 Furhmann, an employee of SeVeighbridge .anclhiter thei sameday rs. w£ ss ™ « " hem In witness’s opinion it Westport Coal Co., he had never known Se Xhaul t? be done by only one Sk Evklence n ’of a similar nature was it Joseph Brown, a scale meehan/ and Robert Cashman, retired injector of weights and measures Mr. O’Leary submitted that it was clear that plaintiff had obeyed orders, seeking to justify ins action by claiming that to do the job without skilled assistance was / a ous. He -would call evidence to show that this particular job was otten done by one mechanic with the assistance of unskilled labour. ■ Thomas J. W. Evans, agent for defendant company at Hamilton, said he had installed and overhauled weigh bridges all over the Dominion with the aid of unskilled labour. To his mind the assistance of a skilled assistant was not necessary. Asked by Mr. Sievwright if be had spoken to plaintiff about the case some time ago, and, shaking hands with him, had said,'“You ought to win, witness said he would not deny it, but did not think he, had said so. When the court adjourned Evans w. still being examined by Mr. Sievwright.