USE OF CAR

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 43, 19 August 1931, Page 5

USE OF CAR

CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL

SALESMAN'S ACCIDENTS

The question whether a salesman'» accidents with his firm's motor-car, together with certain complaints received by his employers as to his conduct, justified his summary dismissal, had t» be decided by Mr. E. Page, S.M., »t the Magistrate's Court-yesterday- in consequence of an action talcen by Joha Joseph Armstrong^ against the Saw millers' Timber 'Trading Company, Hamilton, claiming £101 ss, three months' salary in lieu of notice. After the evidence had been heard the Magig. trade said he would give a written decision at an early date. '' v ■•!"■■■■*•'■. After Armstrong had completed his evidence yesterday, his counsel, Mr. J. Meltzer, applied for an amendment faltering the amount of the claim t» £135, representing. four months' salary. It was submitted, said Mr. Meltzer, that Armstrong- was engaged on^yearly hiring, and was'therefore entitled to fair notice. ;.- , ~;... Mr. ;&. li. Tompkins, who appeared for the defendant5 company, objected to.the amendment, as there was :no allegation in the statement -of . claim of yearly hiring. ;' :■■..^;■ v The Magistrate; however, ruled thit Mr. Meltzer was entitled to theiamendment. ', •■ \ .-. :: .-■ ..■ ..{•■■'■■':■■-:<. Maxwell/ Carpenter, manager of; tha Trading Company, said that no.arrangement had been made with Armstrong asto the term of notice to be given; before dismissal. Armstrong was quits a. satisfactory representative up to V point, and his business had always compared favourably with that of the other travellers employed by the ■company. He was an expensive traveller, however, owing to the mileage he covered in his car. Witness had had reason to discuss this question of mileage with Armstrong on several'occasions, and ha had told him the car was to be used for business purposes only. It was th'» custom of the firm to give its travellers one month's notice. :--^ : . William Lowrie, assessor for th« Boyal Insurance Company, said tlie accident to Armstrong's car on 17th Jujy was an ordinary one, the damage being; estimated at £1110s. He considered, however, that the accident on 7th October was due to "pure carelessness. '• Witness had seen Armstrong's car after the accident oa 16th January, and th» damage it had sustained suggested that it had been travelling fast; at the time of the impact.^ > .- ''• ' v ■"■': ]■■ Arthur James Seed, a director of the" Trading Companyj and secretary: of the BawmiUers' Dominion Federation, said he had received complaints on two occasions : regarding the plaintiff's conduct. It was customary, he said, for timber companies to.give.one month'■ notice to their travellers. ; >;.;,'■■ -.-'■ Counsel for the defendant company! said it was not necessary for them ta show that Armstrong's conduct': had been detrimental to the firm's business. It waa only necessary to show thatit might have been' detrimental. He submitted that the accidents to the car. werenotdue solely to misfortune. \ Mr. J. Meltier submitted that "th« evidence did not show »ny conduct on: the part of Armstrong that : would justify summary dismissal. "::