MANAGER HAD NO POWER TO DISMISS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18063, 25 January 1927, Page 4

MANAGER HAD NO POWER TO DISMISS.

S.M. GIVES JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS* CO-OP. If the general manager dismissed the plaintiff I am not satisfied that lie had power to do so, and there is no evidence of any resolution having been passed by the directors on the subject. This was portion of the reserved judgment given at the 8 * Magistrate’s Court this morning by Mr 11. A. Young, , S.M.. in the case in which John E. Ball, late head auctioneer for the New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative Association of Canterbury, Ltd., claimed from the Co-op. the sum of £125, being two months’ salarv due up to December 31, 1926. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £96 5s 9d. Mr M. J. Gresson appeared for plaintiff and Mr van Asch for defendant company. In surveying the evidence the judgment stated that plaintiff had been employed as head auctioneer for defendant &t a salary of £750 a year, but on October 21 last, as a result of an interview with the general manager (Mr Machin), plaintiff tendered his resignation, which by agreement was to take effect from December 31. On November 11, as a result of a conversation with one of defendant’s inspectors, the plaintiff, with or without justification, became very and on the same day, at the Show Grounds, complained bitterly to the company’s accountant and a director of the company of the treatment he had received. He also made use of threatening and abusive language with respect to Mr Machin. On November 12, Mr Machin having received information as to what Mr Ball had been saying, had a conversation with him over the telephone and told him he had better not come to the office again. The next day the position was discussed by Mr Ball and Mr Machin. and Mr Machin tendered to plaintiff his November salary in cash, and a post-dated cheque for his December salary, saying that if he behaved himself the cheque would be met, otherwise it would not. Plaintiff refused the money and said lie would see Mr Machin the following week, but lie did not see him and his solicitors wrote demanding the two months* salary which had not been paid. The defence was that the salary was not due inasmuch as plaintiff was rightly dismissed. “ The only intimation that plaintiff received was the statement made over the telephone by Mr Machin that he had better not come again, - ’ said Mr Young. “Mr Machin says—‘l did not j intend to deprive him of any money* if he did not intend continuing to injure the association. I did not expect him to do any more work.’ It seems to me that the effect of what Mr Machin did was to suspend plaintiff with the intention that the suspension should continue until December 31, provided. grounds for dismissal did not arise in the meantime. The defendant therefore has not satisfied me that plaintiff was dismissed. Under all the circumstances I think plaintiff should have accepted the cash and cheque tendered by Mr Machin and I will not therefore order defendant to pay costs.’’