NOT DISMISSAL

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 54, 5 March 1930, Page 7

NOT DISMISSAL

DIRECTOR'S CLAIM

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT,

The opinion that the plaintiff had. himself i-esigned from, the position of managing director and had not been dismissed was expressed by the CMef Justice (Sir Michael Myers) yesterday; afternoon at the conclusion of the case in which Edgar Allen proceeded against Eleetrolux, Ltd., Wellington, for £600 damages for alleged wrongful 'dismissal. Judgment was given in favour of the defendant. Mr. J. D. Willis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. G. White, with him. Mr. D. W. Virtue, for the defendant. Continuing his evidence after" "Tha Post" went to press, John Leslie Griffin, public accountant, and a director of the company, said that at the- interview with the directors in October last, Allen, was asked specifically if he was still satisfied that the answers given by him to the directors were correct. He. replied in the affirmative. He was told, of the correspondence held by the direc- ' tors, and he then admitted that some of his previous answers haoUbeen untrue. It was pointed out to him. that the matter of resigning was in his own hands. After an interval for lunch, Allen asked to be given another chance, but was told that the directors no longer had confidence in him. After being told that the directors either had to accept his resignation or to report fully to Sweden, Allen handed in his resignation. It was incorrect that there was any threat about putting him out of the organisation within. 48 hours if he did not resign. Mr. Willis:. "Had Allen not resigned, what would have happened?"—"We would, in any case, have sent a cable to Sweden, on the result of the inquiry to date, and would have continued the investigation. " ■ ■ - - "I put it to you that had he not resigned you would have dismissed him!" —"We have no power to dismiss him." "You would have recommended to Swedea that he be dismissed!"— "Yes.". Witness said that at the inquiry ho intimation was given, to. Allen that Sweden, had confirmed the directors '■ decision. "You have always been satisfied witii his work as managing director?"—"l think so. I don't profess to have any; knowledge of the technical side of the business." ■ • This concluded the evidence for the defence. VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION. His Honour said he had no doubt as to what the judgment must be. The plaintiff in his first cause of aetioa sued for damages for wrongful dismissal. He said that under his agreement he was entitled to six months' notice, and he claimed the equivalent of that by way of damages. Obviously he could not claim on the basis of wrongful dismissal if he himself resigned voluntarily, and that, said his Honour, seemed, to him to.^ be exactly, what Allen did. He chose to resign, rather than take the risk of an adverse recommendation which he knew, must be made to Sweden. Taking the evidence of the plaintiff- and Mr. Griffin and considering everything, continued his Honour, he was forced to the conclusion that the plaintiff resigned and was not dismissed. That in. itself was sufficient to determine the case as far as the first cause of action was concerned, but if he had to consider the question, of justification he would be bound to come to the conclusion that if there had been a dismissal it would have been justified, not necessarily merely by th«F indiscreet letters .which the plaintiff wrote to a lady member of the, staff itt the South Island, although he was inclined to think1 they would ha-s% been; sufficient in. themselves to justify dismissal, but there were a number of questions which were put to the plaintiff .by the local directors. He gave answers to a number of speeifie cjiestions which were not truthful; It was quite possible that if he had given, truthful answers he might not have been in the position in which he found himself to-day. He might have been, given the further chance he subsequently asked for. If an employee holding a high position decived his employers by giving untrue answers to their questions, they must necessarily lose confidence in him. One had to look not merely at the evidence, but at the cumulative effect of the actions of the plaintiff, including, of course, all that took place at the interviews in October. "I am urepared to hold, and do hold," said his Honour, "that on both grounds, or either of them, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. First of all, he resigned, he was not dismissed. Secondly, if he had been dismissed, dismissal was, in my opinion, justifiable." Regarding the claim for a claim, for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to commission,. his Honour said that the audit certificate showed that he was not entitled to anything, nor was there any contract, either express or implied, in regard to the payment of travelling expenses. Judgment was entered, for. the dafendant, with costs. The counter-claim for £17 16s lOd wai dismissed, with costs £5 ss.