ALLEGED VICTIMISATION

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 59, Issue 75, 1 May 1930, Page 6

ALLEGED VICTIMISATION

NAPIEB GAS COMPANY SUED. CASES THROWN OUT. In November last, the inspector of awards, Mr. P. H. Kinsman, sued the Napier Gas Coy., Ltd., in connection with the rate of wages paid to two of its eniplovees, W. ihomas and G. Koper, whom it was aileged, were entitlea to certain award rate of wages, although not fully occupied on work whieh was covered by the award. Following the hearing of this case, the next day, the two nien concerned, and also a third man, were dismissed from the service of the company. The sequel to this action was heard in the Hastings Magistrate's Courtyesterdav, before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M , when Mr. Kinsman ag^in sued the Gas Company, elaiming £10 in respect to each of two charges of dismissing the two men merely because the said men were likely to benefit hy the award. The action was defended hy the company, for whom Mr. M. R. Grant appeaied. In opening his case. hlr. Kinsman said that the department aileged that i the disxnissal of the two men constiI tuted a breach of the award and that really it was looked upon as a case of victimisation. In evidence, Mr. Kinsman said that in October last he received a complaint from the Workers' Union that the two gasfitters, Thomas and Koper, were not bfiing paid in accordance with the award, and the secretary of the union claimed the benefit of the award for these workers to the extent of 2s 3d per hour instead of the 2s per liour, whieh was being paid to them. An. action was taken and penalties imposed. The day following the case, witness was advised that both workers who were concerned in the claims had been dismissed. Mr. Grant: The wliole question of the back pay was gone into by you and the company and you agreed on a sum, did you not — Yes. It was a difficult matter to do so but an arnount was agreed on. How far hack did you go in these investigations ? — Twelve montlis. And the company paid the back pay for that period? — Yes. As a matter of fact they need only have paid for six montlis — That is so. So they paid twice the arnount that they couid have been ordered to pay? — Yes. For the defence Mr. Grant contended that the two men were not dismissed merely because they were entitled to benefit by the award. Over a period of years, particularly in the last twelve montlis, owing to sliortage of work, the company had found it necessary to reduce its staff. ' In the last twelve months at least eleven men. had been put off, and the two men in question would have heen put off sooner than they were had it not been for the fact that they were concerned in the court case. Thomas was a single man and Eoper had only been temporarily employed by the company to take tlie place of another member of the staff, who had gone away to England for a lio'liday. In support of his contention that there had been a drastic reduction in the staff, Mr. Grant mentioned that in the last balance-sheet for 1930, the company's. wages bill was more than £1100 less than that of the previous year. He quoted legal argument in support of his claim, referring to the case of Ghons v. Sclineideman, whieh, he said, showed elearly that the prosecution must prove that the worker was dismissed because, and only because, he might benefit by the award. Loxley Pickering, general manager of the Gas Company, gave evidence that Roper was employed solely to relieve another member of the staff while away in England on holiday. He endorsed the statements concerning the reductions in the staff, and said that this action was in the ordinary course of business, owing to the shortage of work. It was first decided to dismiss Thomas and Roper in Jiine, 1929, but they were kent on until the court case was heard. The dismissal of the men had nothing whatever to do with the fact that they were members of the - union. . , In answer to Mr. Kinsman witness said that he did not know that Roper left his work with the New Plymouth Gas Company to come'to work in Hastings. He was simply taken on as a casual labourer. In reply to' Mr. Grant, witness said that the places of the two dismissed men had not heen filled. The evidence of the two men concerned was taken on commission afc Hawera and Feilding respectively, and in their statements both said that the manager of the Hastings branch of the Gas Company had told them when they were dismissed and that they could thank the inspector of awards for losing their jobs. The Hastings manager, who was in court, was quite prepared to go into the box to deny this statement, said Mr. Grant." This concluded the evidence. His AVorship, to^ Mr. Kinsman: Do you allege that your evidence is sufficient in view of the finding in the Ghons v. Sclineideman case, or have you any more to carry it further? Mr. Kinsman: I cannot carry it any further, but the department is satisfied that the fact that tlie men were dismissed immediately after the hearing of the court case, that because .the. .men had benefited under the award, that no complaints were laid against them and that they were given good testimonials is sufficient. There is also their statement of the assertion aileged to have heen made hy the manager of the Hastings branch. His Worship: I thought it wise to ask you if you had anything more you could add, as I had already made up my decision What you have now said has not altered that decision._ You allege that the company dismissed Thomas and Roper merely because they were entitled to benefit by the award. You allege also that you have given sufficient proof to establisEi tbe fact that it was solely and only because they were entitled to benefit by the award that they were dismissed. I want to say that I see no suggestion in the evidence in support of this. The only unfortunate thing I can see is that it so liappened that the day after the inspector had "tbe company fined for a breach of the award. the men were given notice of termination of their employment, but after one has heard the.reasons given by the manager, it seems to me that tiie company is to be commended on what it has done. This evidence is quite satisfactory _ and_ I cannot see any evidence of victimisation. Even assuming it is true that the Hastings manager told the men that they could blame the inspector for their dismissal, that does not show that the men were dismissed simply and solelv because they were entitled to benefit by the award. It is very plain from the decision hy Mr. Justice Stringer^in the Ghons v. Schneideman case, where the facts are so strong. that you. have not uroduced +be necessary evidence. There is no need for me to lahour the noint any further. The summonses will he dismissed. , No costs were allowed.