A DISMISSED EMPLOYEE.

Southland Times, Issue 14635, 27 January 1911, Page 2

A DISMISSED EMPLOYEE.

SUES HIS LATE EMPLOYER. LVAHL V. ,J. ft. PUU'IO AND t'O. ; At tin- Mayistrale's Court yesterday, i before .Mr (.!. Cruieksliank. 5..M., W illiaiu j i,y,dt 1 ooiiyh I an arliou against .Messrs ■ <:. Price and Co (Price and Pulleid) to recover Uie sum of t'-a as damayes for alloyed wronyful dismissal. Mr T...M credit hj appeared for the plaintiff. ami .Mr It. 11. Kattray for the defendants. ! .Ur .Meredith said that the claimant I had keen in the employ of Messrs Price 1 and Pulleid for over 10 years. lie had started with them at a salary of ££’ las per week, and tit the time ot Ids dismissal v. as earning £-1 as per week, with commissions amountiny to las or fl everv month. During till the time plaintiff had keen Willi the linn Uteri; had keen no complaints as reyards work. Kverythiny had .yone off smoothly until L'Mh Xovemher of last year. Mr J’riee himself heiny away on holiday at the lime. yn the evei.iuy of that day a letter from the manayer (.Mr Ivlwards) was handed to plaintiff as he was leaving tin- shop, notilyiny plainlilf of the 1 immediate termination of his enyayeI meat in view of re-oryanisal ion in the i various departments. The letter also conta ; tted a cheque lor fir, ils ltd. com- : piisiny waves doe for two weeks and one d.y, and one week - * wayes in lieu of no- ' tice, Ci,unset submitted that Slleli a ! sum eot; 1 1 1 mil. Is- accepted in full seilietiM at of plaintiffs claims. If was unreasonable U> expect tliat a man in p I a i n I i .'Vs position would he aide to oht;iij! anoiio-r situation of equal value in one week's time.. ; William Hyall. depose.) that lie was now in hiisines-' at V- inlon hut had been emnloyeil in tile i'vni of Messrs Price and liuMeid fdr i.cr ' ■ a' Had received mu ice of ids dismissal ( wilii a el,e, |tm for £ I £ s I'd I on ■win November. Ilnd -dnee tried to olda.in employment, fill laid no refereaee from the lirm. and ~,d no w..rk nnlii I fill January. His en ya semen I with I‘l'iee ami IhiHeid did n ,n s 11 j 11 d a' e I'ial nnliee should he yiven of it.- termination. Itiylit up to tinlime that Mr Price left for Ids holiday IO Australia Hit October) everyUdny was yoiny on very smoothly. Mr fvlw.trds was left in eharye and then' had I ,ee n little differences. Witness had never heard of the custom of allowiny only one week's notice, either in Price and Itulleid or in tiny oilier house in 1 n verearyi!!. To .Mr liattray: Witness sometime la-t year had an idea of set liny up in business in Invcrearyill on his own account. ■ Had never yiven Air Price a week's no- ; tice, hat had handed in Ids resiynaliou on one occasion on account of some unpleasantness witness had had with Mr Ivlwards. Witness received Ids ways by cheque tit intervals of lour. five, or six weeks. The practice in oilier firms was for employees who were leaviny to yivc one month's notice. Witness did not know Ihft it was a reeoynised custom in the drapery trade to yive one week's notice on either side. Witness had not asked Mr Ivlwards for a reference, nor had lie asked Mr Price tor a reference since the latter camo hack.

JTo was now in a business of .his own in Whiten. -Ur Kailvay said that Mr Price had been in business for 2!) years and there never had been any question that the practice between employer and employee was to allow one week’s notice on either side. ' In special cases circumstances might make it possible to gave longer notice, I but instances of that kind did not alter j.tlio recognised custom. I J. G. Price gave evidence as to the | practice followed in the drapery trade witli regard to giving notice. He men- : tinned that lie had personally engaged Hyall for employment by the firm. Some j time last year I.yall had given a week's notice owing to some temporary disi satisfaction, but the affair had passed I off. -

To Mr Meredith: Witness could not say ho iv loner it would take a man to oMaiu a ]>osilion when lie was thrown out of work. It was largely n mntter of cliancc and of the season. A good man would soon be picked up by another house. Witness thought lie could get a man to fill brail's position in a week’s time, lie did not know how lons it had taken. He did not know that Hyall's successor was in the simp that same incut, and had evidently been preciously advised of I lie position. Witness was away from Invercargill at, the time. .1. If. .Martin, manager for Messrs Thomson and Beattie. and a man with Home. Australian, and Xew Zealand experience, g: ve evidence that the practice in Ids experience, was to pice a week's notice on either side', unless a speeial undertaking had been given. dames Albert Hanan. stated that lie had had thirty years’ experience in the drapery (rude, and it was recognised by both employer and employee that a week's notice was all that each was entitled to. The practice, however, varied considerably, and lie hail known of notice varying from a moment to three months. It was not unreasonable to give only a week's notice, but it might be a hardship hi tiie case of an employee who had put in many years of faithful service. Walter Sidle, manager for (Messrs llerb'rt. Haynes and Co., staled that lie hail been in Invercargill for 1M years. He bad Xew Zealand, Australian and Knglish experience. Assistants were engaged at a weekly salary, and it was a standing rule that they were entitled to a week's notice, unless some .special arrangement were made. Albert Kdwards stated that he had been manager for Price and Bulleid for about a year. He had had previous experience in the drapery business in New Zealand. Australia, and I-ondon. In his experience the usual practice was to give a week's nolice of termination of engagement on either side. T. A. Wallace, over 20 years accountant in the linn of Price and Buileid. wave evidence as to the intervals at which the employees were paid. All hands were engaged by the week so far as the books showed. In ills experience with the tirm no one had been engaged otherwise. •lames Walt, partner in the firm of Messrs Dallas and Watt, gave evidence to the effect that he was not aware of any invariable custom that one week's notice .should terminate an engagement. His linn, when they paid weekly, expected and gave a week's notice; when they paid fortnightly or monthly they gave a fortnight or a month's notice accordingly. Witness knew of no other custom. .fir (Meredith submitted that the evidence disclosed something more than weekly hiring. Tim mere fact that wages were payable weekly did not constitute weekly hiring. it had been laid down that the nature of the work must be taken into consideration. If wages were actually paid fortnightly or monthly, that was strongly suggestive that the hiring was by the month. Counsel also submitted that the defendants must

j fail on the question of custom which i must be shown to be general and to be j reasonable. There was no evidence that 1 the custom claimed was general. Counsel traversed the evidence given on this point 1 and contended that it was unreasonable ' to expect a man who had been employed ; for 10 years by the one firm, and who was ’ earning £1 5s a week, to find another 1 situation in a week's time.

Mr Rattray maintained that it had I boon clearly proved that it was an esI tablished custom for a week’s notice to be given or received on either side. Ho ' also wont exhaustively into the law i bearing on contracts. In this case, he i pointed out, plaintiff was paid at a | weekly wage all the time..- There was j also the evidence that on one occasion i last year plaintiff did actually give his 1 employer a week's notice. Witnesses I who had had large experience in Britain, ; Australia, and Now Zealand, spoke posi- ■ lively of tlie universal custom in the 1 drapery trade. With regard to the al- ' logo.l difficulty of obtaining another posi- : tion, the plaintiff had not tried to get I another position. Ho had paid one visit 1 to Dunedin to one particular firm, and | had made no further effort because lie ; had been told that there were no positions vacant, and because he had no rej fercncos. He had never asked for references.

Mr Meredith suggested that, even assuming that the custom was what was claimed, the defendant’s notice of dismissal should have taken effect only from the end of the week in which the notice was given. But. in any case, lie insisted, weekly hiring had not been proved. In not one instance had the plaintiff over been paid weekly. The .Magistrate reserved his decision, remarking that be would like to look into the case.