A SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 22, 25 July 1918, Page 8

A SUMMARY DISMISSAL

FOLLOWED BY LEGAL ACTION.

HELD TO BE WRONGFUL,

An important judgment of general interest was delivered by Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the, JNlagistrate's , Court to-day in a civil case in which Bernard Brooks, kinematograph operator, for whom Mr. T. Neave appeared, claimed from the Crown Theatre Company, represented by Mr. A. W. Blair, the sum of £19 10s, being one month's salary in lieu of notice and two days' salary at the rate of 15s per day due to plaintiff. In the course of his judgment, the Magistrate said that the plaintiff was engaged in February, 1916, and continued in defendants' service until 11th. May, 1918, when ho was suspended by the manager. The, defendants allege that plaintiff was negligent of his duties as film operator, in that he did not arrive at the theatre in time to see that the machine was in running order, that the stops during the performance were moro frequent than would have been the case with a competent operator, that a greater quantity of electricity than was necessary was used, that the plant was left dirty and improperly adjusted, and also that proper care was not exercised over the films.

Although the directors were not altogethei\ satisfied with plaintiff's film operations, yet they did not, prior to 7th May, seean to think they were sufficiently bad to warrant their dispensing with his services aiter notice. 'Certain events then happened which defendants considered justified them in terminating plaintiff's engagement in a summary manner.

Plaintiff said that he attended the theatre every morning and arranged his programme and machine for the night, and if the preliminary work was done .in the morning there was no necessity for attending the theatre at 7.30 although as a matter of precaution he might have done so. There was no evidence that'plaintiff was ever notified to. be at his post at 7.30 p.m. or earlier. The Magistrate then reviewed the evidence dealing with three incidents "which followed the plaintiff's late arrival at the theatre, due, according to his evidence, v to the illness of his wife. Continuing, his Worship said that tie defendants decided to suspend plaintiff on the grounds of (a) unsatisfactory work amounting to incompetency and negligence on tTie part of the plaintiff, and (b) misconduct in appearing at the theatre on 9th May while under the influence of liquor. There was on the part of a skilled servant an implied warranty that he was reasonably competent for the work he undertook, and, if he proved incompetent, the employer was n<?t bound to continue him in his service. Acts which justified an employer in summarily dismissing an em- j ployeo had been stated to be wilful dis- j obedience to a lawful and reasonable order, insulting or insubordinate conduct, incompetency or habitual neglect, and misconduct inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of his duties. So,far as plaintiff's misconduct was concerned, it was admitted by him that, he had two or three drinks on. one afternoon, but his Worship said that he was j of the opinion that whatever liquor plaintiff had taken wonld not have materially I interfered with his efficiency in the evening. The fact that the plaintiff had performed the same duties at the theatre for 'over two years showed that he was sufficiently competent, but somewhat indif- ' ferent. On the whole, the faults plain- j tiff exhibited were sufficient to warrant defendants dismissing him after notice, but scarcely reached the point where they would be justified in dismissing him without notice.

Judgment was. given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs, £6 13s.