WORKER’S CLAIM FOR WAGES

Taranaki Daily News, 17 February 1933, Page 10

WORKER’S CLAIM FOR WAGES

BATEA BOROUGH COUNCIL SUED. TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT DISPUTED. Before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., at the Patea Court yesterday Joseph Peachey, a former borough council employee, sued the Mayor, councillors and burgesses of Patea for wages allegedly due to him under the terms of his employment, which he claimed had never been terminated. He claimed £144 for wages during the periods he was in hospital during 1931-32 and £lB for wages in lieu of notice, in all £162, but renouncing £ll2, claimed finally £5O. Mr. P. O’Dea appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Rutherford for the defendant corporation. Mr. O’Dea dealt with the law on the subject. The whole question, he said, was whether the contract was still in force, or not; it was submitted that as there had been no notice given the contract was still in existence at the date of the illness. On the question of notice, Mr. O’Dea submitted that reasonable notice, and in this case a month’s notice, was due to the plaintiff. Joseph Peachey, labourer, said that before coming to the Patea borough he had been quarrying at Ngamotopouri. He received an offer by telephone, came to Patea on a Saturday, saw the borough foreman, and started work on the following Monday. His wages were £9, Wet or dry, each fortnight. He was engaged first in March, 1930. In. December he went into hospital and was there until January 6. While in hospital ho was visited by the Mayor. Witness was worried about his job, and in reply to a question the Mayor had told him that ■ his job would be waiting for him when he came out. Sickness, the Mayor had said, was a thing that could not be helped. Witness began work again about a fortnight after he came out of hospital, drawing his wages as usual without reduction. On February 21 he again went into hospital, and was again visited by the Mayor. Peachey said he thought it was this second time that he discussed the question of his job with Mr. Ramsbottom. He came out in June and went back in July and stayed until August. NOTICE IN THE BIG BOOK. The first word witness knew about his job was in October, when the Mayor referred him to Mr. Naismith, a member of the council. The town clerk had told him he was dismissed and showed him the notice in the “big” book. A nephew had been appointed in his place. Witness admitted he had worked for 20 months without receiving any annua] holidays. There were only two receipts showing broken periods of work when £9 had not been received, Mr. O’Dea objected to a question put to witness as to why he failed to claim wages for the period when he was in hospital. . His Worship ruled it was to some extent a legal question, but allowed the witness to continue. Witness admitted his wife had applied for and received charitable aid after he came out of hospital. Witness admitted he had made no claim for wages until November. To his Worship witnes said that his terms of employment were given by Mr Mills, borough foreman, who had said it was a permanent job at 15s. a day, paid fortnightly, wet and dry. CORPORATION DEFENCE. Mr. Rutherford doubted whether there was any case to meet, The magistrate

did not share this doubt, however. Leslie Willett Austin, town clerk of Patea, said that in his opinion Peachey Was an ordinary labourer employed at Is. 10kl. per hour. He had been “assistant foreman” only in the sense that he was the only man engaged in helping the foreman. Witness contrasted other employees’ positions with that of Peachey as regards terms of employment. The borough foreman, Mills, was a permanent hand who received a fortnight’s annual leave on full pay. Peachey had never received any holidays. ■ln October Witness had told Peachey that his services ■would not be required. Peachey had taken the place of a man who had died, who had also been a casual erTo Mr. O’Dea, witness said that Peachey was expected to work on wet days, but the work was not necessarily outside in the rain. The insurance policy of the plaintiff, Peachey, was made out, said witness, in a form stating that he was a casual labourer at Is. IOJd. an hour. “In all decency,” asked Mr. O’Dea, “after this man had been with you for two years, do you not think he was. entitled to some notice that his services Were dispensed with? Witness did not think so. The council's viewpoint was that the plaintiff had automatically discharged himself by failing to turn up for work. During the first period when. Peachey was in hospital another man, Nelson, had been taken on, but put off again when Peachey came back to work.

To the magistrate witness said that during 19 months Peachey had received £9 per fortnight, no allowance ever being made for wet days or holidays. These payments were based on a 96-hour time-sheet.

William Earnest Mills, foreman of the Patea borough, said he appointed Peachey to his job, telling him that it would be practically as good as a permanent job, that he would have to turn out in the wet to look after sumps and watertables, that he would have to work the same hours as witness and that the pay would be Is. IOJd. per hour or £4 10s. per week. Mr. Rutherford submitted first that witness was an hourly servant, entitled to an hour’s notice, secondly that he was a casual employee who could be dismissed without notice, and that plaintiff’s illness went to the root of the consideration of the contract, and so justified the council in rescinding. No claim for wages was ever made. When plaintiff first went into hospital he accepted broken time, and on the second occasion in hospital again signed for broken time. Thus plaintiff was shown to have considered the payment as an act of grace. Regarding the Mayor’s promise

that Peachey’s job -would. be all right, counsel submitted that It was in fact consistent with, either plaintiff’s or defendant’s submission, and disclosed no legal liability. • In reply, Mr. O’Dea said that surely, the fact, that a man was ignorant of his legal rights was no reply to a subsequent claim. Plaintiff was content at the time to get back his job; if he. had made a claim for wages while in hospital he might have expected that he would be discharged from his position. Not many working ,men did know that they could claim for wages during a temporary illness. Mr. O’Dea again emphasised that the borough council had not rescinded the plaintiff’s employment The magistrate reserved his decision. OKAIAWA DISTRICT NEWS. UNION CHURCH TRUST BOARD. A meeting of the Okaiawa Union Church Trust Board was; held recently. A vote of sympathy was passed with the relatives of the late ..Mr. Andrew Lees, who had been a member of the board for many years. Messrs. D. Johnston and S. A. Tippett, the retiring members, were accorded a ’ vote of thanks. The following committee was elected: Messrs. J. E. ‘ Meuli, J. Thrush, D. Blair and D. Johnston. The. Okaiawa public school held its annual picnic at the, Kaupokonui beach on Friday. Three lorries were used to convey, the children and their parents. The children were well catered for with swimming races, etc. and sweet scrambles. Luncheon and afternoon tea were enjoyed at the cookhouse. - ' TENNIS MATCH. In a home game on Wednesday 'the Okaiawa B tennis team drew with Normanby B in a game abandoned owing to wet weather. The sets were 10 all (Normanby 97 games, : Okaiawa 92). Details are (Okaiawa mentioned first) Men’s Singles: H. Evetts lost to P. Linn I—6; Chas. Blair lost to C. Graydon 4—6; F. Tilley won from Smith 6—5; G. Good won from D. Hughes 6—5; W. Martin won from L. Hitchcock 6—2; E. Old-, field lost to P. Clement 5—6. Ladies’, singled: Mrs. Evetts lost to Miss Hitchcock 3—6; Miss. R. Williams won from Mrs. Oliver 6 —5; Mrs. Good lost to Miss Hitchcock . 4—6; Miss Ward won from Miss Norfolk 6—3; Miss E. Cameron and Miss P. Gane drew 3 all in a game abandoned owing to rain. Men’s doubles: H. Evetts and Chas. Blair lost to Linn and Graydon I—6; Tilley and Good lost to Smith and

Hughes 4—6; Martin and-Oldfield wen i from Hitchcock and Clements -6—3. . Ladies’’ doubles: Mrs.' Miss R. Williams lost' toMisis .JKfcjieock • and Mrs. Oliver 5—6; Miss ; R<Bliir;and r Mrs. Good won from Miss H. Trarjklin and Miss Hitchcock 6-1;' Miss. and Miss E. Ward lost: to ;‘Miss »P. Gan# and' Miss Norfolk £-6. /' • „ Combined ’ doubles:. C;; ■ Bltiir zand. Miss R. Williams won • from ' Graydpn and Mrs. Oliver 6r-3;■ Tilley -and :;Miss R. Blair won from E. Smith arid’, Miss H. Franklin 6—4; Oldfield and Miss. E. Ward lost to Clement • and Miss - Norfolk 3— 6, PERSONAL’.’ •_!?■ Mr. and'Mrs. J. E. Meuli’ ape £ pending a holiday at .the Opunake beach. • ?' ■ Mr. - and Mrs. W. Preece-' aye " visitmg Whangarei. ; ' . ’’ y;;'' .. Mr. W. Johnston, who has been in the Hawera hospital, has returned' home.- •; Mrs. O. Crawford has returned home after a short holiday at the Pa tea beach. .Miss Chapman is the guest -of Miss b. oidfieid. ' ’ ‘ . Mrs. Hodge'is the guest of her mother, Mrs. W. Baker. . ’ ,' Mr. J. C. Barclay has retu'rried from New Plymouth. ’ Mr. Stan Corbett, who ■ has '-been the guest cf Mr. and Mrs, .Good;;'has 'returned to Pungarehu.