THE NGUTUWERA CASE

Patea Mail, Volume XLVIII, 29 May 1925, Page 3

THE NGUTUWERA CASE

JUDGMENT FOB DEFENDANT COMPANY A reserved judgment of interest to directors of dairy factories and factory managers was delivered by Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., at the Hawera’Court on Wednesday, in the case in .which Philip Scorringe (manager) sued the Ngutuwera Dairy Co. for £2OO damages for alleged wrongful dismissal. On July 1923, the plaintiff was appointed manager of the factory, and in July, 1924, he was rc-appointcd, or. the same terms, and was notified of the rc-appointmont. In November, 1924, the company informed him that they wore not satisfied with tho way in which ho was discharging his duties, and ho was requested to resign. He refused to resign, and later in tho month he was informed that his services were dispensed with. Tho effect of this notification was instant dismissal, and, alleging that the dismissal was not justi tied,the plaintiff sued for damages. Tho company alleged on ten different grounds that Scorringe failed to obey tho instructions of the company, and in several respects worked against the interests of the company. Some of these allegations wore denied by the plaintiff, while others were described as too trivial to warrant dismissal.

“On the facts,” the judgnfbnt stated, inter alia, “I am of opinion that the dismissal was justified. Scorringe d;sobeyed the lawful commands of the directors,. and told the suppliers that he would not obey them, and ho embarked on conduct that was injurious to the interests and the prospects of the company that employed him. If tho company made certain decisions and communicated them to the manager, ho c«uld not justify continued disobedience by reference either to his own standards ‘ ‘ Mr O ’Dea was correct in submitting of what is reasonable or to the established practice of othc.r companies, that the bonus granted to the plaintiff and his rc-ongagcmcnt in July, 1924, was a condonation of all that had preceded that date. However, it was equally clear that further acts of disobedience tended to revive the effect of those that had been condoned. The plaintiff had not satisfied His Worship that he had legitimate grounds for complaint against Mr Bolton (chairman of directors) or that Mr Belton displayed improper animus towards him. The position was that of a manager properly described as a competent and ambitious young man, a good worker with high credentials refusing to accept the limitations imposed upon him by the smallness of the company and communicated to him by the chairman of directors. Tho plaintiff’s ambitions and desire to manage were bigger than could find outlet in the operations of the company, and he lacked the discretion to accept the position and obey for the time the lawful demands of the directors. “Judgment was therefore given for the defendant company, with costs to be fixed at Waverley, where the case was heard.”