Untitled

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 112, 13 May 1937, Page 11

employees of a holiday to which they were entitled under their contracts of service. There was no evidence of the terms of the employees' contracts of employment, and the claim would accordingly fail on that ground also. A second view might also be taken of the vital clause, said Mr. Luxford. If the intention of the parties had been that future annual and State holidays should be granted.to each employee, as previously, in addition to those specifically prescribed by the award, they could easily have given effect to such intention.

In the absence of express contract, statutory requirement or custom, the granting of holidays or privileges to employees was solely in the employers' discretion, and he could find nothing in the clause depriving him of the right. - - - ■ Mr. James contended strongly that proceedings had been improperly brought, and asked for cosfs. Mr. Luxford said that lie could not believe that the proceedings were improper or that they should not have been brought against the defendant companies. The rule had definitely been laid down that in actions in the nature of quasi-criminal proceedings no costs were to be allowed unless the proceedings were improper or oppressive. The application for costs was refused. '

Security for appeal was fixed at five guineas in each case.