BITT AR, Appellant-Defendant v. APKAR PETRIKIAN, Respondent-Plaintiff
Contract-Employment-Duties of employer when terminating the employment
-Period of notice
Reception-Termination of employment-Period of notice-English rule preferred
. over rille tinder Mixed Tribunals
Respondent was employed by appellant as a clerk, and at a monthly
salary. He had been engaged by appellant in 'a different town from that
in which he was working for appellant. Appellant gave respondent -. one
month's notice that he was going to terminate respondent's employment,
and refused to pay respondent's fare back to the town in which respondent
had first been engaged. .
Respondent sued' appellant for damages. In the court of first instance,
it was before Peacock J.
Held: Respondent was entitled to damages because appellant had
acted unreasonably in~giving respondent only one month's notice of his
dismissal, i.e., had not given respondent a longer notice in proportion to
the number of years for which respondent had worked for appellant. But
in the absence of a contractual undertaking to pay respondent's fare back
to theplace of engagement, appellant had no liability For refusing to pay
such fare, however unreasonable his refusal might be.
On appeal
Held: (i) A court cannot inquire into the reasonableness .of the
conduct of an employer in dismissing an employee, unless the conduct is
such as to be a breach of the employer's duties arising under the contract
of employment.
(ii) An employer has no duty, apart from contract to pay an employee's
fare back to the place of employment. ,
·Court: Wasey Sterry, Acting J.C.
(ill) In the absence of express agreement" or special custom to the
contrary, it is an implied tenn of contracts of employment that the period
of notice of termination of the employment that must be ~ven the em-
ployee is the same as' the period of the interval at which wages or salaries
are payable.
Appeal
The facts appearing in the headnote are taken from the judgement
and the court file.
January 29, 1914. Wasey Sterry, Acting C.J.: In my opinion
Mr. Bittar is entitled to succeed in 'his appeal and also on the cross
appeal. I do not think that a court can go into questions of the
reasonableness of the conduct of an employer and if it thinks he
might have acted more reasonably otherwise, give damages against
him for a matter in which he has not made himself liable in contract.
Moreover in this case I have no data for ascertaining whether Mr.
Bitter did or did not act reasonably. That being so I entirely agree
with the civil judge's finding that apart from agreement an employee
has no right to demand his fare back to the place of his agreement.
As regards the length of notice to which an employee is entitled,
I see no reason to differ from the English rule that apart from
special custom the intervals at which wages or salary are paid is the
period for which notice must be given. And if the Mixed Tribunals
. have adopted a rule of giving increasing length of notice for every
year of service, I am afraid that I cannot follow them.
No evidence is produced that a month's notice is not reasonably
sufficient for a clerk; I am aware that such is the notice that 'is given
by the Government to temporary clerical employees and I think I am
entitled to assme that to be a fair standard. Mr. Bittar's appeal
therefore succeeds, and he is entitled to his costs and the cross appeal
is dismissed with costs.
Appeal allowed
Cross appeal dismissed