A DISMISSED MANAGER

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 June 1928, Page 5

A DISMISSED MANAGER

REFUSAL TO TRAVEL. A case was heard in the King’s Bench Division, London, recently, before Mr Justice Avory and a special jury, in which Mr Horace E. Palmer sued Messrs Weddell and Co., for alleged wrongful dismissal. Mr Palmer claimed damages for alleged wrongful dismissal from his employment as assistant manager of the tinned goods department and manager of the dried fruits department of Weddell and Co.. West Smithfield and Rood lane, E.C. It had been stated that plaintiff was to receive a salary of .£lOOO a year, under an agreement of 7th May, 1925, until 31st December, 1930. He had a disagreement with' Mr Eastaff, who managed the tinned goods department, and when he was asked a second time to travel in the provinces he refused. The company pleaded that the dismissal was justified because of plaintiff’s misconduct in refusing to carry out instructions.

Sir Henry Maddocks, K.C., and Mr Robert Fortune appeared for the plaintiff; Mr J .D. Cassels, K.C., and Mr S. P. J. Mr rlin for the company. Mr Ernest Alltree Bevan, manager of the provision and canned goods department of the Union Cold Storage Company, stated tliat when the Hon. Samuel Vestey said it would be a good hing if Palmer visited the provinces

n almer said he was delighted with the idea. Witness mapped out a four weeks’ journey. Palmer did not go on the next journey, and when he got his notice to leave he said “he would go for them like .” His Lordship: “Well, -that is what he is doing now.” (Laughter). Sir Henry Maddocks: “Did you tell Palmer not to be a fool about complaining of prices; that he had to work under Eastaff, and ho had better leave it alone?” —“I did.”

“Do you think that consistent with his duty if he saw things go wrong merely to keep in with Eastaff that lie should keep his mouth shut?” —“1 don’t call differences about prices things that should bo reported.” / Witness said that definitely or permanently travelling was never mentioned to Palmer. It was part of his duty to travel, in witness’s opinion. It was a custom of the trade. MULTITUDE OF HEADS. The Hon. SAmuel S. Vestey said he was a manager of the Union Cold Storage Company, and in a general way he exercised supervision over the canned goods department of Weddell and Co.

Mr Cassels: “How many businesses are there that the Union Cold Storage Company are associated with?” —“I should think about a hundred at least.” ,

Witness stated that owing to the heavy stocks of Weddel and Co., he suggested that Mr Palmer, as a temporary measure, should go and look after their travellers and agents, with a view to developing the business. He appeared delighted, and thanked witness for the opportunity. Mr Vestey said he referred to the matter as being temporary. He did not. think he was asking anything more than usual from a manager.

His Lordship: “How many employers had Palmer, because from the first you were giving orders as to what, he iiad to do. Then there is Sir Samuel Vestcy, who gives him orders, and then there is Mr Bevan, who runs the whole show. (Laughter). How many altogether of you were there?” Witness said that. Mr Bevan, as manager of the. department, would bo consulted by an employee in such a case as that of Mr Palmer. His Lordship: “You are manager of some department in the Union Cold Storage Company?” —“Yes.” “And Sir Samuel Vestey is what—supreme?”—“Yes, he is managingdirector.”

‘•Was there any other in a position to give orders to plaintiff?”—“Yes; any of the directors could have given orders to plaintiff, but they would work automatically through the manager of the department, Mr Bevan.”

Air Frederick James Eastalf. man ager of the tinned goods department of the defending company, gave evidence. Mr Eastaff, speaking as one who had had thirty years’ experience in the trade, stated that managers and assistant managers had gone to towns on business.

In cross-examination, he said he did net contend that an assistant manage!" should go on the road when ordered to go ami do the work ot a commercial traveller. Witness said he was now doing the work which plaintiff refused to do.

Re-examined by Mr Cassels, witness stated that when lie said he was glad to get lid of Palmer he meant: “As long as Palmer was in the country Eastaff was happy in Rood lane.” (Laughter). The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, who was awarded L3SBJ 6s Bd. Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs. His Lordship refused a stay of execution.