DAMAGES CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 48, 19 November 1932, Page 18

DAMAGES CLAIM

Alleged Wrongful Dismissal WEIGHBRIDGE WORK The case in which Herbert Hickliug (Mr. A. B. Sievwright), a weighbridge machine foreman, claimed £lOOO general damages and £5 wages from W. and T. Avery (N.Z.) Ltd. (Mr. H. F. O’Leary) for alleged wrongful dismissal, was concluded before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour reserved judgment. Thomas J. W. Evans, a Hamilton employee of defendant company, continuing under cross-examination, said that he was foreman for Averys at Wellington for about two and a half years, and in that time he had overhauled about three weighbridges, always having an assistant with him. Henry Edward Bolton, stock clerk for Avery, Ltd., said that on July 20 he discussed with Mr. Hickliug repairs which had to be done to the Westport Coal Company’s weighbridge. He drew plaintiff’s attention to the load of work which was on hand, and told him that as far as he could see he would be the only man who would be available to start work on the Westport. Company’s weighbridge. Mr. Hickliug said he would not start the work unless he had an assistant with him, and refused to depart from this stand. General Manager’s Evidence. Leslie Charles Rossiter, general manager in New Zealand for defendant company, said that Mr. Hickliug had told him that it was customary for two men to be sent to repair weighbridges, as there was an element of risk about the work. Witness pointed out that there was no more risk with one man than with two. Witness told Mr. Hickling that he would have to go down, and start work on the Westport Coal Company’s weighbridge, and Mr. IliCkling said he would not do it without assistance. Mr. Hickling was then given notice that his contract would be terminated. Witness had been in charge of the firm in New Zealand for about four years and a half, and in his opinion it was not necessary to send two skilled mechanics to repair a weighbridge. When Mr. Hickling refused duty, he told him that he left him no option but to terminate his contract, and pay him a fortnight’s wages. Cross-examined, witness said that the acquisition of the business formerly conducted by Mr. Hickling was done not with the object of putting the business out of existence, but to secure Mr. Hicklings’ services. His Honour: You admit that Mr. Hickling is a thoroughly competent mechanic ?—“Yes.” Leonard Joseph Launders, scales mechanic employed by defendant company, said he had carried out overhauls to weighbridges both with and without assistance. He had overhauled the Westport Coal Company’s and the Wellington Harbour Board machines with unskilled assistance. His Honour: When you were asked to overhaul the Westport Coal Company’s weighbridge, did you ask for skilled assistance?—“l was promised assistance, and expected it.” Highly Skilled Expert. Albert Carter, foreman for defendant company, said he had installed weighbridges at Christchurch, Napier, and Gisborne, and had never had other than unskilled assistance. Cross-examined, he said that he regarded Mr. Hickling as a highly-skilled weighbridge expert, and he was always very careful in carrying out overhauls of weighbridges. Mr. O’Leary contended that plaintiff was out of court in refusing to go to work with unskilled labour. The general manager had told him to make a start, and that unskilled assistance would be given him when it was available. The chief objections Mr. Hickling bad were that the work was dirty and that he would have to carry tools to and from the job. Mr. Sievwright, for plaintiff, said that the main point was, had plaintiff reasonable grounds for believing that there was grave risk of danger if he Undertook the overhaul of-this weighbridge without skilled assistance? Not an independent witness had been called for the defence; all were members of the staff of Averys, Ltd. On the other hand, plaintiff had called three independent experts, who had said that it was dangerous work, at which it was essential to have skilled assistance. The general manager of the defendant company was not prepared to consider the question of safety, and it was clear that plaintiff had been dismissed upon unreasonable grounds. The Chief Justice said he would take time to look into the case, and would give his judgment next week.