‘‘KNOCKED OFF.”

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIII, Issue 13783, 23 June 1905, Page 3

‘‘KNOCKED OFF.”

A CLAIM FOR WAGES. ■ At.the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, i before Mr W. H. Bishop, S.M., E. ■ sued P. and D. Duncan, Limited, tor the sum of £3 6s, one week’s i wages claimed in lieu of notice of dismissal. Mr DougaJl appeared for the defendant company, and Schwebe a - German, conducted his own case. The i plaintiff, stated that he had been work- : ing as a wheelwright with the defendant company at 10s a day. He had : then 'been offered a better wage by an- : other firm, but his employers offered him an increase of Is a day and the ■ promise of constant employment :if lie would stay on. This he had agreed to, but had subsequently ; been discharged without notice. He Kb first imagined that he was under an ' award, but had since discovered that this was not so. He now claimed the ■ week’s wages under general custom. In answer to Mr Dougall plaintiff etated that he had never, when being ■“knocked off,” declared that lie would never return to Duncan’s on any conditions. The defence set up was that the plaintiff had not been discharged, but pimply “knocked off,” three days after which he had obtained ’ work elsewhere. He had not been informed when trade brightened with the defendant Company because he was then working. The usual custom was to give a man no notice when “ knocking him off.” ■ Several witnesses gave evidence as to ;he custom in shops when a man was 'paving. “ Knocking off ” a man was requesting him to stop work at a moaent’s notice and remain off until work inprovod. He would then be sent for. Then discharging a man he would be gven a week’s notice. After hearing a good deal of evidence oi the question of custom, the Magistato, in giving his decision, stated that cistern, to be any use at all, should bo stictly followed. There appeared to bin no justice or reason in the custom sifted by witnesses. He_ quite understod that the case was quite clear from anj question of unionism, and stood entity .alone, so it came back to the jjrod question of whether the man was ■ entiled to a week’s notice, or simply ■ entiled by the custom of the trade to be “knocked off.” He did not see that * an enployer should have the right, on the srength of custom, to “ knock off ” a mtn, and that man would have the optici, according to his necessities or oppotunities, of seeking work elsewhere or liaiging round waiting for things to tmpro-e with his previous employer. It seened to him that that could easily be male an excuse for getting rid of men wthout the obligation of giving a week’s notice, unless there was an ibbligaton, according to the custom of the trao, of giving them the opportunity of oming on again, ah opportunity wnich ithad not been proved defendant cornpanj had given plaintiff. Judgment wold be for throe days’ wages during tie time he was out of work, i i£l 15s, nth costs.