HARBOR BOARD OFFICIALS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 260, 14 February 1889, Page 3

HARBOR BOARD OFFICIALS.

SOLICITOR’S OPINION WANTED.

Ar the meeting of the Harbor Board on Tuesday evening, the following report of the special Committee (Captain Tucker and Messrs Shelton and Bennett) was read :— The Committee was appointed to consider the position and salaries of the officers of the Board and to report thereon. We find that the Secretary is in receipt of a salary of £lOO per annum, and would give or take one month’s notice. The Wharfinger receives £2OO per annum, and would give or take one month's notice. The weighbridge keeper is a weekly servant at a salary of ten shillings per weak, and is entitled to receive a week’s notice. The Harbormaster receives £2OO per annum, and is entitled to give or take one month’s notice. The Overseer receives £4 10s per week, and is entitled to give or take a month's notice. The Engineer’s clerk receives £2 8s per week, and is entitled to give or take one week’s notice. The En. gineer receives a salary of £BOO per annum, his salary hitherto has been paid half yearly. In the letters from him to the Board and the resolutions thereon the notice necessary to be given on either side for the purpose of terminating his engagement is not specified, and your Committee are therefore left to discover what would be reasonable notice to give. They are therefore of opinion that if the Engineer desired to terminate his engagement three months’ notice from him would have been sufficient to

do so, and therefore a like notice from the Board should be given to him ; but as there seems to be some doubt on this subject they , are inclined to recommend that the notice required on either Bide should be regarded aa six months, which in their opinion would be ample, whether received by the Board or eby it. In the letters and resolutions 3 to it is stipulated that should the cease from any cause the Engineer’s engagement should also cease; —such cessation did occur by operation of law. But the Engineer was subsequently employed and Continues in the service of the Board. In the view of the uncertainty surrounding the Engineer’s engagement your Committee is c£ opinion and now recommends that six months’ notice of termination of agreement beat once given to the Engineer, and chat in any fresh engagemet the necessary notice Should be distinctly specified. We would also recommend that the Engineer’s salary Under such fresh engagement should be paid monthly. Ths Engineer states that hie agrreement with the Board is not terminable by any notice, but is continuous until the breakwater shall be finished. Your Committee are of opinion that such an indefinite state of things should not exist, and would direct the attention of the Board to the circumstances under which the arrangement with the Engineer was entered into, which they think would forbid such a view, The Chairman thought there was no comment called for except with regard to the Engineer, who differed with the Board as to the nature of his agreement, Mt Chambers said with regard to the notice to the Engineer he considered it a moat highhanded procedure to propose. He did not believe the Board had power to interfere with him until the work was completed. He had bean through the papers bearing on the subject ana remembered the circumstances, attending Mr Thomson's engagement, and ho had no doubt in his mind that the Engineer was appointed to superintend the whole work, and that the engagement lasted during his good conduct in carrying out that work. The Board would act wrongly in taking notice of such a recommendation. The only thing they could do was to arrange with Mr Thomson in case of any further Government Interference. He moved that the clause ' recommending notice be given to the Engineer shall be expunged. Mr Sievwright coincided. The Committee had given a very strong recommendation, and he did not think they should act upon it until at least they had consulted their legal adviser, The Chairman said the Committee in making that recommendation had in view the indefinite nature of the agreement with the Engineer. Subsequently the Engineer informed them that no notice would terminate his engagement—that was a point which still further strengthened the position taken up by the Committee, as it made it more Urgent that there should be a definite understanding. As to the propriety of giving further notice, once they considered that the engagement was not understandable* and therefore not desirable, the only conclusion they could come to was what was reasonable notice? There was no notice specified in the arrangement, and this was a state of things which should not be permitted to continue. The Committee appointed, viewing the thing calmly and dispassionately, thought they must terminate the engagement. The only thing they had to guide them was that the salary was paid every six months. Supposing the Engineer wanted to quit the the Board’s service it would be unreasonable to suppose that he could not do so by giving sufficient notice. The Committee’s recommendation was to terminate an unsatisfactory engagement. If the Engineer said a certain notice would do the subject might be settled. No rbjection would be taken to the notice being given, and no further step need necessarily follow. Mr Sievwri.ht: Except a claim for damages. The Chairman: There would be no dismissal. Mr Sievwright: The notice would amount to a dismissal.

The Chairman ; Possibly that view might be taken—it is for the Board to say which position they like best, having a servant they get rid of if they wish, or to take giving fair notice. The Board must consider what is fair to themselves, and regard that as equally fair to their officer. Mr Clark understood that the Board was perfectly satisfied with the Engineer. He believed the engagement could be terminated at any. time by six months' notice. He did not think the agreement was so indefinite as the Committee thought, and he saw no need for such a notice being given, The Chairman said there was not the faintest suggestion of incapacity. Mr Sievwright said the Committee omitted to state their reasons for giving notic". Mr Chambers said it was to force the Engineer's hands—it was telling him that if |se did not do a certain thing he must take six months’ notice of dismissal. The Engin*et»,was engaged for the whole work. If this, question had not been brought up they would have gone on without trouble. However, he would like that there should be some understanding with Mr Thomson as to what would be the position if another stoppage Of the works occurred. Mr Bemett pointed out that Mr Thomson's letter stated that in case of the stoppage of the works his engagement would cease. Chambers: Then what better do you want than that ? Mr Bennett said by the present agreement Mr Thomson was engaged practically for ever. If Mr Thomson wanted to leave and eve six months' notice the Board was poweris to prevent him, but according to the contention of some members if the Board wished to get rid of their servant they could not do so. Where there was power on the one tide there should also be the tame on the Other. Mr Sievwaight said the same remedy would bo open to either side if the engagement were not terminable. Mr Bennett said the Committee had nothing to do with the capabilities of the Engineer—they were appointed to make a certain report and had done so. The Chairman said that question had not been raised at all. Mr Shelton said the Committee in recommending that notice be given, considered it Was to settle the present indefinite arrangement.

Mr Chambers considered the Committee Was suggesting a wrong course, • A motion by Mr Sievwright, seconded by ( Mr Chambers, that the reference to the Engi- ’ near, be expunged, was lost. Mr Clark thought the Board had made a mistake before in not giving Mr Thomson notice when the work was stopped by Government, m he was satisfied they had the power do so. He thought under ordinary oircum - Ranees masonabla notiw on either side would

the works were actually stopped. If the Engineer gave them notice it might not be a serious thing for the Board, but if the Board gave Mr Thomson notice it would be a serious thing for him—there were a great many more engineers than boards. Mr Sievwright mpve-1, and Mr Chambers seconded, that the report be not adopted until the question of notice to the Engineer and the effect of his contract be submitted to the solicitor and the Board be advised thereon.

The Chairman thought if the members were satisfied that the adoption of the report meant actually giving the Engineer notice, it would be unwise for them to take up a course which they might afterwards regret. He did not think the Committee would care to thrust the Board into a false position. -Mr Chambers said they could not blame the Committee—the Board bad its own choice as to whether it would thrust itself into a false position. Mr Townley said there was a time for all things; if notice were given he thought it would be necessary to give it about the time that a payment of salary was being made—they could not give a man notice in the middle of a weak.

The Chairman contended that point would have no weight. Mr Townley said it was the custom. When the engagement with Mr Thomson was en tered into he (the speaker) wanted the position defined, but the majority of members would not listen to it, and he believed Mr Matthewson was one of the number. Messrs Matthewson and Chambers said they had no recollection of it. Mr Townley said Mr DeLautour, who was then on the Board, had stated that ths letter written by Mr Thomson was ample agreement. There was at that time the doubt as to whether they would get the money, and Mr Thomson had offered in that case to accept a remuneration only for what work he had done for the Board. He was under the impression that if they interviewed Mr Thomson some definite understanding might be come to. The Chairman pointed out that the report gave Mr Thomson's view that he was engaged far the whole work.

Mr Townley said that being the case he agreed that some step should be taken to define the position, and he believed that it would be wise to first consult the solicitor,

Mr Bennett said the different opinions expressed by members during the last five minutes showed the necessity for having the position defined, Mr Shelton eaid they had no right to ask favors from anyone—the position should be a defined one on either side.

In reply to a remark of the Chairman Mr Townley said they could be sure the Engineer, if he wanted to leave the Board's service, could easily find means of doing so. The motion was then put, Messrs Shelton, Bennett, and Matthewson being against. The Chairman moved, and Mr Bennstt seconded, that the question of notice to the Engineer and the effect of his contract be submitted to the solicitor by the Committee appointed to report as to officials and his opinion be laid before the Board at its next meeting.