DISMISSAL CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22585, 25 November 1936, Page 15

DISMISSAL CASE

THEATRE EMPLOYEE CLAIMS FOR PENALTIES PROCEEDINGS AT NAPIER [llV TELEGRAPH—OWN CUR RESPONDENT] NAPIER, Tuesday Claims arising out of the recent dismissal ofr an employee at the Gaiety Theatre were partly heard by Mr. J. Miller, S.M., in the Napier Magistrate's Court to-day, when the inspector of factories, Mr. J'!. A. Wood, proceeded agaijist H. W. Thompson, managing director of the theatre. The claims were for a penalty for an alleged breach of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act in that defendant dismissed from his employ Freeman Steel merely because of the fact that he was a member of an industrial union and because he was entitled under a provision of the Finance Act, 1936, to an increase in the amount of his remuneration. The penalty claimed in each case was £25. Defendant was represented by Mr. Mason. Wages Reduced in 1934 Freeman Steol said he had been associated with the Thompson-Payne theatre for about 17 years. He had been biograph operator and assistant manager during that term. His last engagement commenced in December, 1930. Witness said he had been receiving £7 ss, but in March, 1934, his wages had been reduced. From that date to July of this year the question of wages had only been mentioned once, witness continued. Thompson had stated he would not take any notice of any Act the Government brought in, as he was determined to " run his own show." Later Thompson had asked him how the new Act would affect him. Witness told him it would affect the whole staff, and ho (witness) was prepared to stand by the award. The next day Thompson told witness another theatre operator was quite satisfied with £4 a week, and that was all they were going to pay him. Defendant's Alleged Demand Witness continued that Thompson also said that witness would have to sign an agreement or get out. After considering the matter, witness told defendant he would not sign any agree-, ment. Subsequently lie was dismissed. Witness said that Thompson had objected to the holding of union meetings.

Witness added that lie had asked for three months' wages, to which he said he was entitled. As he considered he had been unfairly treated he went to the Labour Department and later received through it a sum for back pay.

In reply to Mr. Mason witness denied that there had been continual trouble between him and Mrs. Thompson since the reduction in pay was made in 1934. He denied that he had been a troublemaker.

Mr. Mason then read a petition to Thompson from theatre employees requesting that Steel be not reinstated in any circumstances. Witness said there must have been pressure brnqght to bear on them to sign a thing Tike that.

Alexander Alfred Lett, questioned regarding the signing of the requisition, said " Well, everyone else did and 1 had to think of my job." Mr. Mason: Did you sign it of your own free will? Witness: Yes. Mr. Wood read a letter written by witness to the secretary of the union, in which he said he signed it because he did not want to lose his job. Company Secretary's Evidence

Katherine Reston, secretary of the company, said she was the moving spirit in asking that Steel be not reinstated, her reason being that there would be more harmony in the business. She said there was continuous friction among the stall', this being due to Steel. John Payne, a life director of the company, said he considered that' in the dismissal of Steel the law had been transgressed, and that the matter of dismissal should have been dealt with bv the full directorate of the company. Thompson had made statements that any member of the company who " talked union would go out." Witness did not agree with this attitude. Witness was told by Mrs. Thompson that Steel had been dismissed because he had become a " red ragger." The hearing was adjourned until December 3.