"GOOD CAUSE"

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 44, 20 August 1938, Page 10

"GOOD CAUSE"

WHAT TERM IMPLIES

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE

(By Telegrapli.) (Special to the "Evening Post.")

NEW PLYMOUTH, This Day.

A judgment of wide interest to employers and employees concerning the conditions of the termination of a contract of employment was given in the Opunake Court by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., when he stated at length his views on the meaning of the words "good cause" in an award because he had been informed during the hearing that many other awards were similarly worded. Supporting the contention of counsel on behalf of the Oaonui Dairy Company that the shutting down of the vat constituted "good cause" for the immediate termination of the employment of an employee1 tending the vat, Mr. Woodward gave reserved judgment for the company, which defended a charge brought by the Inspector of Awards. **.'Good cause' in my opinion means fair and reasonable grounds considering aU circumstances, including relative hardship to either party, which may result from the immediate termination .pf an engagement by the other," sasd Mr. Woodward. After quoting the clause which provided for a week's notice but also for the immediate, termination of the contract of employment by either party "on good cause," the Magistrate stated his views on the last phrase. Mr. Woodward said that since the common law gave a master the right to dismiss a servant for such reasons as wilful disobedience or gross misconduct, to read words ,'*good cause" as synonymous with those reasons would be to render the clause superfluous in so far as it provided for the immediate termination by the employer. Moreover, the right to terminate immediately belonged; to the employee as well as to the employer. "I conclude that 'good cause' in an award must include reasons other than those for which the common law gives the right of immediate dismissal, and also that there is intended tc be mutuality in the exercise of the right of termination of employment," Mr. Woodward continued. "The fact ,of the employer having no further need of any employee's services or the fact of the employee having no further need of the situation are similar and equaUy cogent reasons from the point of view of the employer and the employee respectively for the immediate termination of the contract, but neither of these facts standing alone, in my opinion, constitutes 'good cause.' I think that to constitute 'good cause' there must be something in addition, like urgent necessity, as, for instance, when an employee has the bpportunity of a better position which he must take up at once or else- which prevents the immediate termination of the. contract by one party from causing avoidable hardship' to the other." Such circum-' stances existed in the case under review. The employee was provided with a better opportunity of finding another position, both from the manager's verbal intimation and from his own observations, than he would have- had if written notice had been given. Had he found another situation before the vat was closed down and had it been necessary for him io take it up at once there would have been "good cause" for the termination of the agreement on his part without notice. • <