WORKER'S DISMISSAL

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 62, 15 March 1927, Page 11

WORKER'S DISMISSAL

FROM DAIRY FACTORY

CLAIM FOR PENALTY FAILS

A claim for a £25 penalty for an alleged breach of section 110 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was brought by the Labour Department against the Tararua Co-opera-tive Dairy Company in the Arbitration Court to-day. The case related to the dismissal of A. Gillett, from the company's employment, and it was alleged by the Labour Department that Gillett had been dismissed merely because he would not sign a petition expressing satisfaction with his wages and working conditions. The dairy company said that Gillett was dismissed because he was an unsatisfactory worker, and by reason of his unsatisfactory habits. Further, when he expressed dissatisfaction with his wages and conditions the company seized the opportunit. to dismiss him, as it would not have an unfit man on its staff. Evidence was called by both sides, and after a short retirement, the Court gave judgment. His Honour (Mr. Justice Frazer) said that it was shown that Gillett had been a very unsatisfactory worker, and probably would havo been dismissed at any time had not there been doubts about his replacement. The directors of the company knew that there was a movement on foot to form a union, and apply for an award. They knew that Gillett had joined the union, and they wanted him to say that he was satisfied with his wages and conditions and sign a statement^ Gillett refused, and was promptly given notice. Did these circumstances constitute an offence? If Gillett had been a satisfactory worker, would he have been dismissed? One of the witnesses said "no," and another witness had formed the notion that as ha (the witness) was a satisfactory worker his billet was not in danger. Gillett's refusal to sign the statement had been the last straw. It was a reason for his dismissal, but the majority of the Court was unable to say that it was the sole reason. The actual reason was a combination of circumstances. The majority of the Court could go further and say that if Gillet had been just an average worker and had been dismissed, in the circumstances the Court would probably have looked very doubtfully on the statement that the directors were not satisfied with his work, and that he was not dismissed because he was a member of the union. Mr. Monteith, v/ho dissented, said that the man was dismissed at the mc- | ment of his refusal to sign a statement that was detrimental to the membership of the union, and he was of the opinion that the case came within the section of the Act. The application was dismissed. Costs were not allowed. _ Mr. B. T. Bailey appeared for the ■Labour Department, and Mr. E. Kennedy for the defendant.