1931 WAGES CASE

Grey River Argus, 20 August 1937, Page 12

1931 WAGES CASE

Dismissed Employee CLAIM AGAINST DENTIST. MORRINSVILLE, August 14. Reserved judgment was delivered by Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court in a case in which Mr J. Mclvor, inspector of awards, claimed a penalty of £25 from John Stewart Caulfield (Morrinsville), for the alleged wrongful dismissal of an employee. In the evidence given at the July sitting of the Court it was alleged tuat defendant, a dentist, had dismissed R. G. Gamble, a dental mechanic, on account of the fact that he was bound to pay him £6 a week, instead of £5, which he was receiving. Gamble had sought to secure a rate of remuneration similar to tnat which he was getting in 1931. In that year Gamble and defendant had been employed by a dentist named Hannan. In 1931 Hannan had taken Caulfield into partnership, but the former nad since retired, leaving defendant in the business. Defendant had lately dismissed Gamble, stating that he could not afford to keep him. Immediately after his dismissal Gamble had laid a complaint to the Labour Department and the inspector of awards, purporting to determine that he was entitled to be paid at the rate of £6 a week as from July Ist, 1937, and later he claimed £l9 5s as back wages. Acting on a letter from the district inspector of factories, Caulfield had paid the amount claimed.

“Apparently the only ground for the inspector’s decision that Gamble was entitled to be paid £6 a week was that he was receiving that rate in 1931,” said the Magistrate. “The fact that Hannan paid Gamble £6 a week is not evidence that Caulfield would have paid him the same amount. There was no standard rate of pay for dental mechanics in 1931 and the rate of pay that Gamble was getting was higher than that being paid in the cities.” Mr Paterson stated that he was satisfied that Gamble had been discontented and that he had not been dismissed by reason of the fact that under the Finance Act, 1936, he was entitled to an increase in the rate of his wages. It was unfortunate for defendant that he had not sought legal advice, instead of paying the £l9 demanded by the Labour Department. Apart from the question or remuneration, the Magistrate was satisfied that defendant had had good reasons lor dismissing Gamble. Judgment was given for defendant with costs.