A CIVIL ACTION.

Franklin Times, Volume XXII, Issue 58, 20 May 1932, Page 5

A CIVIL ACTION.

j DISMISSAL OF APPRENTICE.

MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION

| The dismissal of an apprentice to ' the bakery trade led to the hearing of a civil action in the Pukekohe Court on Wednesday. The plaintiff, Roderick Douglas, of Auckland, claimed from the defendant, Theodore Thomas Montgomery, of Mercer, £235 10s, representing £35 10s alleged to be shortpaid wages and £2OO general damages. The plaintiff told the court that he was engaged by defendant as a casual worker in his bakery business on June 4, 1927, and was paid a weekly wage until October 2, 1930, when, as the result of enquiries by the secretary of the bakers' union, a contract of apprenticeship was arranged and signed. It was made retrospective so that plaintiff could receive allowance for the years he had served. As the result of losing a contract at Pokeno for the supply of bread, defendant had dispensed with him as from October 31 last. Montgomery had stated that if he could regain the contract he would advise plaintiff. He went on to say he had endeavoured to obtain other work since the termination of his employment but had not been successful.

Gross examined by counsel for the defence, Douglas stated he received £'l 5s a week' when he first entered Montgomery's employ, and received a rise of 5/- after two years. After being shown "wages books he had signed, plaintiff admitted that up to the time of the signing of the apprenticeship contract defendant had paid him £2l 5s in excess of the amount the agreement provided for. According to the secretary of the union he had not received his full wages. At October 1, 1930, he was in receipt of £6 a fortnight and toward the end of January, 1931, was receiving £6 10s. The books were again shown to Douglas and on several of the items claimed for he admitted he was wrong. Examined at length by the solicitor for defendant, Douglas said the understanding was that Montgomery was to re-employ him after a month off work. He had no dispute with his employer nor had there been any trouble be-

1 , tween them. Plaintiff admitted that ! defendant had a governor fitted to the • car on account of the speed he (Dougi las) drove at. Douglas was examined closely as to his general behaviour , and in each instance gave a denial to ■ questions put to him. He also de- > nied that he had been dismissed be- ; cause he failed to clean a barrel. Union Secretary Gives Evidence. . i ' I Edward Joseph Watson, secretary of , ' the union, said he discovered that | Douglas was not a journeyman nor was he an apprentice, but the outcome of ; a visit was the signing.of a contract , of apprenticeship. Had witness drawn I this up he would have made the ! period for two years and eight months, from October, ,1930, ,to June 1932. ' Evidence was also given by plaintiff's mother. i In moving for a non-suit, Montgom- • ery's counsel said there was provision in the act for the dismissal of an ap- , prentice. It was competent for eith- ' er- party to take the case before the i court, but where definite provision was made to cover the breach, the common ■ law right ceased. Further legal argument followed. Defendant in evidence stated that a ! fortnight before he discharged plain-

tiff he had cause to remonstrate the youth for failing to scald a barrel in which yeast and potatoes were mixed. When told on October 14 that he would be dischaiged, Douglas refused to take a delivery run. He left defendant's employ at the end of October, and about a fortnight later returned asking when he could re-com-mence. On this occasion defendant informed plaintiff that he had no intention of allowing him to do so. At first Montgomery said he lost the contract for bread supply at Pokeno, four months ago, but later told the magistrate he could not say when his occurred. The loss of the contract meant he was making 300 loaves less, or one quarter of his output per week. Montgomery added that he had experienced much trouble with Douglas and cuslomers had complained as to his conduct. Evidence as to having overheard Montgomery discharge Douglas for failing to clean barrels, was given by two women employees of defendant. Other witnesses also gave evidence as to plaintiff's behaviour. ' Mr F. 11. Levien, S.M., intimated he would give his decision on June 1.