MANAGER SEUS DIRECTORS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 27 May 1925, Page 11

MANAGER SEUS DIRECTORS.

RESERVED DECISION GIVEN

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. Judgment in the case in which Phillip Seomug© (manager of the iNguuiwera Dairy Co., Led., proceeded against bis employers , lor £2OO damages for alleged wrongful dismissal was given in tlie Ha went hi agistfate’s Court to-da.v by Mr. J. Baiiifm, S,M. After dealing at great length with the points raised judgment with ccets was pronounced lor the defendant. company. . . The plaintiff was appointed as manager of the company on July 9, 1923,, for te season 1923-24 at a, salary of £225 per annum and various concessions. In July, ,1924, he was ieappointed manager on the .same terms for tlie IVJ2-l-2o season. On November 15 lie was served with a letter notifying him that the directors were not satisfied with the way that he was discharging hie duties, ancl requesting him to hand in his resignation forthwith. Mr. Barton, in the final .sentences oi Iris judgment, said : “On the facts before me I, mi of the opinion that the dismissal of the plaintiff was justified. He disobeyed the lawful commands of the directors and iie told suppliers that he would not- obey them, and lie embarked on conduct that was injurious to the interests and prospects of the company that employed him. These things have been held sufficient grounds- to justify summary dismissal. • It is true that in most eases of disobedience the direct low*' to the company was that of a small sum of money, but that fact does not in. my opinion excuse the plaintiff. The company was a small one, and its scale of operations was small and its management was almost' domestic in character. I think Mr. O’Dea is correctin .submitting that the bonus granted to plaintiff and his re-engagement in July, 1924, is a condonation of all that had preceded that date. T think, however, that it is equally clear that further acts of disobedience tend to remove the effect of those that had been condoned. The plaintiff has not satisfied me that he bad legitimate grounds for complaint against the chairman of directors. Mr. Belton, and I am of the opinion that, Mr. Belton's conduct towards plaintiff was fair. The position, is that of ?>, .manager properly described by Mr. O’Dea as competent and ambitious, a good worker, and with high credentials, refusing to accept the limitations imposed on, him by the small ness of liis company and communicated to him by the chairman of directors. I think that plaintiff’s ambitions and de-ire to manage, were bigger than could find outlet in the operations of this company, and he lacked the discretion to accent the position and obey for the time,the- lawful demands of the directors. Judgment is for the defendant.-” Counsel engaged were Mr. P. O’Dca for plaintiff and Messrs. Treadwell and Graham for defendant.