BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 5030, 30 July 1903, Page 2

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER’S CLAIM. * Yesterday the Chief Justice gave judgment in an appeal brought' by C. G. Tegotmoicr against the Bank of New Zealand Board of Management Provident Fund under section 20 of the rules of the Bank of Now Zealand Officers' Guarantee.and Provident Association. His Honor, in giving judgment, said .it was admitted that the appellant was. an officer of the bank, at all events up to tho 31st December, 1899. On the 16th August, 1899, be intimated to the chairman of the’bank, irter alia, as follows:—‘‘ln view of the existing conditions of tho bank’s administration, I have no alternative but to inform you that, subject to satisfactory arrangement, it will be acceptable to me to be rol’oved of ray present duties, the continued performance of which is. I reto say, ■ attended with neither credit nor satisfaction to myself, nor, X fear, with benefit to the bank. The ojicration of circumstances which it is unnecessary to refer to has removed from the general manager's hands tho measure of control and authority which I consider is essential to a satisfactory discharge of the duties of his position; and, as a necessary consequence, I am unahlo to regard myself as having responsibility in tho. conduct of the bank’s business,” etc.-, etc. The letter ended: “I submit that, circumstances having rendered impracticable my discharge of tho duties of the position which I accepted. I may with fairness ask tho board to restore mo to the position which at- their request 1 vacated, or in sonio other suitable way, recognise my claim to their consideration.” To this letter, on tho 27th September, 1899, the chairman replied and set out tho minute of the hoard in the. letter. The important part of tho minute was as follows;—“It was resolved that as soon as a successor can he conveniently obtained Mr Tegotmcior bo relieved of his duties as general manager of the bank, and that, in consideration of his past services, he ho thereupon paid six months' salary; that, after being relieved. ho bo offered a scat on tho Bank’s Advisory Board in London at tho customary remuneration, and on the usual conditions as to tenure of office.” The chairman added that he proposed to ask the board to fix the 31s't December as tho date by which arrangements were to be made to relievo Mr Tcgetmeier and to vote him £330 for his return travelling expenses to London. On the, 10th October tho chairman intimated that tho board had agreed to tho two proposals stated in his letter of the 27th September. The appellant acted on these letters, lor be remained in office till the 31st December. On the St-h January, 1900, he was offered a seat on the Advisory BoSrd. “tho members of which are appointed by the Board of Directors under tho power conferred by article 58 of the bank’s deed of settlement, such appointment being revocable at any time at the will of the board without notice,” etc. On tho 7th January the appellant accepted tho offer of a seat on the board. He left for London immediately, and from February, 1900, up to tho 31st March, 1902, ho was a member of the Advisory Board. The only question that the Court had to determine on this appeal was— Whether being a member of the Advisory Board entitled tho appellant to consider that he was still jn the employ of tho Bank as an officer. In his opinion, a member of the Advisory Board would not be properly an officer of the bank under either the deed of. settlement 1897 or 1898. The question arose, however, what was tho effect of paragraph 13 of the deed of 1893? It was as follows:—“A member of the association continues such as long as ho is an officer in the employ of the bank, or in receipt of pension from the association. Provided also that, should any member of the association, with the concurrence of the Board of Directors of tho bank, accept a position not hitherto filled by an n' Tl eer of, tho bank.-but of which the duties relate to the bank, he shall not. on account of such acceptance, cease to bo a member of tho association, or forfeit any of the claims, rights and privileges of membership, but shall continue to contribute to tho Provident Fund in accordance with clause 24.” He was of opinion that the position of member of an Advisory Board was a position not filled by an officer of the bank, and. unless the words “with the cnncivrenco of the board” did not fitly describe the apuellant’s anpointment to the office be was within the terms of paragraph. 13. Enid- 1 it- be said that bo had not accepted the position with the concnrrenpg of the Board of Directors of the bank? He had been appointed by them. and. therefore, the office ho held was an office held with their concurrence. The rule did not any that some outside authority was to appoint. no doubt if an outside authoritv had made such an appointment Mien the benefits of section 13 could not bo obtained unless the board concurred. Tn his opinion, all that section 13 required had been fulfilled. That was concurrence. One objection raised was that tbe appellant was not in office between 31st December. 1899, and the 7th January. 1900. But. in his fthe Chief Justice’s) opinion what was done on the

sth January, in offering him tho appointment, was in pursuance of the arrangement made in September and October, and that it was on this footing that ho retired from tho general managership on tho 31st December, 1599. His Jotter of the 16th August was not a resignation. He only wished to bo relieved of his office “subject to satisfactory arrangement.” So far as the question put ‘in this appeal was concerned, ho (tho Chief Justice) was of opinion that, under section 13, tho appellant was entitled to remain in the Provident Fund, and ho had done nothing to prevent himself from so remaining. The appeal was, therefore, allowed with £8 8s costs. Mr Hislop appeared for the appellant, and Mr Hosking (Dunedin) for tho respondents. ‘