DISMISSING AN EMPLOYEE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 16795, 20 July 1920, Page 6

DISMISSING AN EMPLOYEE.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT, ACTION PdR DAMAGES. In the Magistrate’s Court .on Monday’ afternoon, before Mr, T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., James Alexander Craig (Mr. P. B. Fitzherbert) claimed from Alfred Ings (Mr. H. R. Billing) the sum of £66 as damages for alleged wrongful dismissal, the amount representing eleven , weeks’ - wages at £6 per week, plaintifi having been summarily | dismissed after working for two weeks j under a contract for three months’ employment. ' 7 1 Mr: Fitzherbert said the case was not without difficulties. Plaintiff was an American citizen of Irish parentage. Early in the present year the .parties met in San Francisco, while Ings was • there looking for a . dry vulcaniser plant. After some negotiations they entered into partnership in a particu J Tar process of vulcanising, -and an agreement as to the terms being signed in America. Plaintiff came out to New Zealand with Ings, paying his own and his wife’s faro to the Dominion. He brought some plant and equipment of his own with him, and they started business. Subsequently the partnership was cancelled aim a contract was entered . into' whereby plaintiff agreed te work Hor Ings for a period of three months for the sum of £6 per week, and he relinquished his rights with regard' to any claims in connection with the partnership. Within a fortnight of the contract being made,, ■plaintiff was summarily dismissed by Ings with 48 horns’ notice, without any reason being given. Mr. Fitzherbert said the particular process of'vulcanising* was a somewhat simhle one rind easily learned, and it appeared that Ings, when he had learned the method simply dismissed plaintiff. A consideration of £l5O was to be paid by defendant for the plant brought out by Craig. The .claim therefore was for

damages for wrongful dismissal. Plaintiff in evidence said the particular process of vulcanising was a dry process. It was not known in New Zealand, and in consequence of not being able to work at it here ho would have to return to America. In regard to the £l5O, the first £SO was paid at the time the contract was made. £SO a little later, arid the last £SO after he was dismissed by Ings. To Mr. Billing: His desire to - dia T solve the partnership with Ings was on account of his dislike of defendant’s methods of business. It was not because he was disappointed with New Zealand, though fie confessed,to not being “struck” on tbe place, and particularly when lie came to New Plymouth. Witness said he did not think ! Ings knew anything of his particular process cf vulcanising, as he had only been in the business about a couple of weeks in San Francisco, Witness denied being in the habit of coming to work late when employed by Ings. In preference to taking other work here witness said he thought he would go bade tc tbe States. When they made the contract for employment, there was a good deal of work in band, and Ings wanted him to remain for three J mouths. He was not aware that there ( had been any complaints as to bis work. He denied ever having adopted the ‘ go slow” policy. /He turned out all the work the plant was capable rif. He, did not think ho had given Ings any justification for 'dismissing him. Ho had never complained to him about Ins work at all. , . Re-examined by Mr. Fitzherbert witness said he had received no warning whatever fro'm Ings that he was likely to be dismissed. nHe was certainly dis-. gusted with the high prices Ings charged for the work, and had heard customers 6a} r that Ings had said he was making money out of witness’ work. Mr. Billing said his client’s defence was grounded on the contention that the dismissal of Craig was justified on account of the quality of his work, his uncouth manner, and his claim for double time for overtime. . . Evidence was given by defendant as to entering into the partnership. .Ho also said he had put about £650 into the business. Craig became dissatisfied, and before they actually commenced business wanted to be released. Authorities were quoted by both counsel as to the validity of the contract entered into, after thaj&magistrate reserved his decision.