BANK MANAGER’S CLAIM.

Wairarapa Age, 5 August 1921, Page 7

BANK MANAGER’S CLAIM.

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. Auckland. August 3.—Mr Justice Salmond gave judgment in the Supreme Court to-day in a case in which Arthur Charles Thynne, bank manager. of Morrinsville, claimed £2OOO from the Bank of Australasia for alleged wrongful dismissal. The case involved two question#: (1) Whether the engagement of the plaintiff was properly terminated; (2) whether the plaintiff was entitled to receive any contributions paid, by him to the provident fund. With regard to the first question his Honour held that it depended upon the interpretation and effect of the agreement of service and on whether the agreement provided that service might be terminated by notice in writing by either side or by the paying of a month’s salary in lieu of notice. This being clearly provided. the dispute turned on the meaning of the term “salary” in the agreement. Plaintiff was in receipt of a fixed salary of £320, with house allowance of £52, and on terminating his service lie was paid one-twelfth of £2OO (one month’s salary), thus disregarding the house allowance. Plaintiff contended that in assessing the month’s salary payable to him it should be based on the total annual amount of his remuneration.

“I am satisfied,” said the Judge, “that the bank acted constitutionally, and that the term ‘salary’ does not include the whole of the emoluments. The salary must be distinguished from the allowances. Allowances are in the nature of a reimbursement. An example is a traveller’s allowance, and the allowance paid to defence officers.” His Honour held that the

salary, therefore, was that sum which plaintiff was entitled to receive so nomine only, and that in excluding the allowance the bank had acted in accordance with the contract between the parties. With regard to moneys contributed to the superannuation fund, his Honour was of opinion that the plaintiff had no claim to this. Even if the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed he had no claim on the fund. The determination of these points of law disposed of the whole action. Costs were allowed to the defendant.