STAFF BENEFIT FUND

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25952, 19 September 1945, Page 6

STAFF BENEFIT FUND

CLAIM AGAINST COMMITTEE FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD Mr Justice Kennedy and a special jury of 12 were engaged in the Supreme Court again yesterday in hearing a claim by Henry James Grayson, a former assistant general manager of the Standard Insurance Company of New Zealand, Ltd., for £869 16s 3d from the committee of management of the company’s guarantee and provident scheme. The sum represented the amount which the plaintiff alleged was due to him, but not paid. The defendants, who were represented by Mr J. S. Sinclair, were Arthur Hadfield Fisher, the general manager. Edgar Christopher Hazlett, chairman of directors and Joseph Albert Hey, accountant. Mr F. B. Adams appeared for the plaintiff. A Under cross-examination Arthur Hadfield Fisher said the real motive behind the decision to alter the rules of the company’s provident scheme was to bring them up to date and make them conform with those of leading insurance companies. Mr Adams: Do you appreciate that the amendments deprive a person, innocently dismissed, of all rights against the fund?—That is entirely against our principles; we have never refused to pay out to any man dismissed by the company. Comment by His Honor Stating that it was a pity witness had not obtained legal advice on the question of deleting a clause in the rules, his Honor said there should be no question of treating an innocent man more unfairly than a dishonest one. The result was absurd and repugnant to commonsense, and any court, as would a man of commerce, would struggle to avoid it. To Mr Adams, witness said that if a man was asked to resign by the company he was paid the full amount due to him from the fund; if he resigned' of his own volition, he was not. Accountant’s Evidence

Joseph Albert Hey, accountant and secretary at Dunedin for the head office of the company, said that he first felt concern at the administration of the provident fund in 1939 when an Auckland employee, aged 34, resigned and asked for his money from the fund to buy a business. After four men had resigned, and had been paid the full amounts due to them the committee of management met t<? discuss the position, as the then chairman of directors considered that payments on the scale of those which had taken place would lead to the winding up of the fund. Witness himself considered that the purpose for which the fund had been established—to provide for old age. sickness, and death—was not being fulfilled. Witness prepared a new draft of the rules embodying certain amendments, and before they were presented to the committee they were discussed by Mr Fisher, Mr Grayson, and himself. The plaintiff offered no objection to them then or at any time. The new rules were approved by the committee on May 23, 1939, and were sent to the Board of Directors, which also approved them. A copy of the rules was sent to the branch offices and no protest was received from any member of the staff in Australia or New Zealand. u To Mr Adams, witness said he did not think it necessary to consult the staff regarding the amendments, which he considered, were for the benefit of members. The committee had, power to alter the rules and the staff knew that. It did not occur to him the the amendments were unjust to men who had reached a stage of service where they had a right to money in the fund. Motion for Nonsuit

Mr Sinclair formally moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the evidence in support of the plaintiff’s allegations was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. His Honor adjourned the motion for further consideration, stating that he would take the verdict of the jury on the issue, subject to that motion. After counsel had addressed the jury the court was adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning.