CLAIM FOR SALARY

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 40, 17 February 1932, Page 5

CLAIM FOR SALARY

IN LIEU OF NOTICE

ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE

Holding that he ,was ; entitled to three monthsrsalary in lieu of notice, and transpOriatidta for Himself, wife, and furniture KickftudiS /advertising, executiye,;,.w,ho -left; the^ einplbyl bf,-. '■;. (N.Z.);; atfaiialtthe.'cdmpaSy fbf r£29s"at?the Magistrate's,:" Court yesterday, afternoon; The ca^A^hear^byjJV^T^^P^ge^S^r-jV^. iln HisYstatement ofVclaim.ißickaife'said' th^iu^Mayj-ll^jwhile resident! in/iNew' Soutli: ; Wales,''ib 'was agreed-that'he'should serveythei company.,,;iii; the capacity.;. !of principal-executive of its advertising biisir ness in New Zealand at a salary b£ ','£7 Bo per^aijinuni;-pay-able weekly, and should bej;:iNretamed^ by- >the . company:?- in,*si its se£yjce|:i'; .until the_ service '; 'should be •\.;,-,-;ia^termihe.4 by , three!! v mbh|hs' Eptifcg;: vj; (qr.', reasonable notice) '/'on eitiierWside.- As a result of the«ebonomic ccindilibßs in ; ;,New Zealand'th^:'plaintiff agreed in March, 1931, in common with all. other.(members. of the staff,'vtoV accept a; 15 per pent, temporary reduction in his salary,,and had since receivedia reduced salary; of £6GS per annum Vitfrihe understanding that-the salary was to be reinstated; and v'the reduction vpaicL soonVas business again became normaliflt was-also agreed, that the company, should; pay -the. fares and travelling expenses-of the plaintiff and his wife, together withfth'e freight and insurance on their; furniture fr^m Sydney to .Wellington, and on the termination of the service, also to pay the return fares of the plaintiff and his wife, as well as the freight" on their furniture from Wellington to Sydney; -The defendant company paid £100 for the fares, travelling expenses, and freight, as alleged. The plaintiff: served the defendant company in the capacity of advertising executive Until 29th January, 1932, when the company verbally dismissed'him and refused to 'pay.;.the fares-and expenses of himself, and , his wife; ■ and.;.. the ; - freight and insurance on their .furniture''''from Wellington to Sydney. The plaintiff therefore claimed £295 damages in lieu of notice and £100 travelling, expenses.; , .. ' - THE DEFENCE. J ■ Before the plaintiff gave his evidence, counsel for the defendant company outlined the nature of the defence. The plaintiff, he said, was not employed at a yearly salary, but his'wages were £15 per week. It was alleged that during the time the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant company he was insubordinate in .that he failedr to learn the "rates and media" which it was essential he should .do if he were properly to carry out his duties. It was alleged that he had repeatedly neglected his duties and failed to keep contact" with the people he had1 made contact with. It was also alleged that he was guilty on a'number of beca-. sions of gross carelessness in the carrying out of his business. Counsel submitted that the defendant company was. entitled, if it so desired, to dismiss the plaintiff without notice because of his insubordination and inefficiency in carrying out the duties of his position. , In evidence, Eickarda said that, during the whole of the period of two years and nine months in which he' had been, employed by the New Zealapd company he had never had; a complaint from':. Mi1. Freeth, a director of the company, or anyr one_ else about insubordination. Witness denied that he,had ever been insubordinate. Referring to the question of learning the "rates and mecUa," he said that when Mr. Freeth asked his opinion as to whether executive officers: in the company should learn them, witness said he disagreed asihe thought he (Freeth) was the only man who had the authority to deal with them. Later," Mr. Freeth had once or twice brought this matter up and said that he ..(witness) had refused to dp them.'Witness said, he had not refused to do the rates, but had merely given his opinion on the niStter. r :/ .','. ;■,"■:■.■. ■.;' :. •- -. DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS. Witness denied that he had ever neglected His duties or failed to keep contact with people. He said that He had never Heard of any complaint of gross carelessness, and that as far as He knew his services had, been quite satisfactory. Both Mr. Freeth arid Mr. Catts had passed coinr : plimentary reiriarks aboiit'Hiii\work. : ? Cross-examined -by counsel fpr the de^ fendan't-. company; -witness sai^Kthat Be? fore leaving Sydney Mr. CattsHhadjs^; that his. ;sajary- iii JTew::Zealand'f would' be . £15 per Week.' Nothing>;was said -ilbbut notice. Witness knew that in the Sydney office membersof the staff Had left dn one ■week's notice. "'■•; ■-. ■'■"■ ■■'■■'• '■'■''- \i'i'.:' •Before the cross-examination of the witiness was completed' Mr. Page>adjourned the case until.'to-morrow: morning; .■*•