WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21239, 20 July 1932, Page 12

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

TOWN BOARD - FOREMAN.

NO WILFUL MISCONDUCT,

SUM OF £163 DAMAGES.

[FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.] MATAMATA, Tuesday.

Judgment for plaintiff for the full amount of damages claimed, £163 16b, has been given by Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the case in which Valentine Busby Forbes, formerly, foreman, sued the Matamata Town Board for wrongful dismissal. . It was stated at the hearing of the case that plaintiff, who had been foreman to the board for three years, certified to the time-sheet of a permanent hand, who had been away from work ill for 2£ days, as if the employee had been working on a job. The reason given by plaintiff was that permanent hangs were paid by the week, that other men in similar positions had been paid when away sick, and the chairman of the board being away at the time ho took full responsibility for the matter. Forbes had been dismissed by the Town Board at a second meeting, held two weeks after the matter had first been mntioned, following the receipt of an anonymous letter by the board. In a written judgment, the magistrate said ho had no reason for doubting plaintiff's bona-fides in the matter, and he had come to the conclusion that his action in certifying the time-sheet was due to an error of judgment and not to any wilful misconduct. Tho chairman of the board had admitted that the employee would have been paid in any case, and before going away had told the foreman not to bo too hard on the men, as if he were delegating Bole control to the foreman. He was not very satisfied with the chairman's account of an interview with the plaintiff, following the receipt ol the anonymous letter by the board, and preferred the plaintiff's evidence on this point. ' « "I am satisfied that, had the matter, been finally dealt with at the first meeting of the board, at which plaintiff made his explanation, that plaintiff would not have been dismissed," said the magistrate. The chairman had admitted the foreman was not dealt with at the first meeting of the board and that he had threatened to resign if plaintiff were not dismissed. The legal points involved were summed up in the following propositions of law Misconduct which will« justify a master dismissing his servant without notice must be "gross rfioral misconduct pecuniary or otherwise, inconsistent with the fulfilment of the conditions of service;" and that one single act of misconduct wguld justify dismissal if the consequences might be serious. The magistrate found there was no intention to deceive the board, nor to assist anyone else to deceive the board. The only respect in which plaintiff's action might be inconsistent with his conditions of service would be that a small sum was debited against the wrong account in the board's books. The defendant board was not justified in dismissing plaintiff, said the magistrate, and in his opinion the damages claimed, six months' salary, were not excessive. Costs were allowed £4 15s.