ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Master and Servant-Contract of service-Agreement for term-Notice of termination
-Salary in lieu of notice-Wrongful dismissal-Appointment to inferior position -Non-acceptance by employee-Perfarmance of duties-Continuance-Readiness and willingness of employee-Protected undertaking-Termination unauthorized -Effect in law-National Security (Man Power) Regulations (S.R. 1942 No. 34 - 1944 No. 175), reg. 14.
Regulation 14 (1) of the National Security (Man Power) Regulations provides that an employer carrying on a protected undertaking shall not, except with the permission in writing of the Director-General of Man Power or of a person authorized by him, terminate the employment in the undertaking of any person employed therein. Regulation 14 (2) provides that a person employed in a protected undertaking shall not, without a similar permission, change or terminate his employment.
Held, by Rich, Dixon, McTiernan and Williams JJ. (Latham C.J. and Starke J. dissenting), that, by reason of this regulation, a purported dismissal of an employee in a protected undertaking, without obtaining the requisite permission, was ineffectual in law to terminate the employment.
The effect of a wrongful dismissal upon a contract of employment and the relationship of master and servant created thereunder and the rights, remedies and obligations of a servant wrongfully dismissed, discussed.
George v. Mitchell &King Ltd., (1943) 59 T.L.R. 153 and Woolley v. Allen Fairhead and Sons Ltd., (1946) 62 T.L.R. 294, discussed and applied.
Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): Watson V. Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty. Ltd., (1946) 46 S.R. (N.S.W.) 336; 63 W.N. 107, by majority, varied in part, otherwise appeal dismissed.
On 12th October 1938 George John Molesworth Watson entered into an agreement under seal with Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) and Independent Industrial Investments Pty. Ltd. which after reciting, inter alia, that Watson was a director of the company and had for some time past been employed by both companies as manager, and that they were desirous of appointing Watson their general manager and Watson agreed to accept the position, SO far as material, provided as follows Clause 1: That both companies appointed Watson their general manager for the term of six years computed from 1st October 1937 subject to the terms and conditions thereinafter set out. Clause 2 That Watson should at all times during the term of his employment diligently and faithfully serve both companies and observe and carry out all the reasonable instructions and directions of the respective Boards of Directors. Clause 3 That Watson should exercise and carry out all such powers and duties and should observe all such advice and directions relating to the businesses as the respective Boards of Directors from time to time conferred or imposed upon him and subject thereto should control the general management and businesses of both companies performing such duties…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson [1946] HCA 25
Case
[1946] HCA 25
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd and another (the companies) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the termination of George John Molesworth Watson's employment as general manager. Watson had entered into a six-year agreement with the companies, which continued on foot after its expiry. The companies purported to dismiss Watson, but he contended that these dismissals were ineffectual.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the purported dismissals of Watson were ineffectual to terminate his employment. This was to be determined by considering two grounds: firstly, whether Regulation 14 of the National Security (Man Power) Regulations rendered the dismissals a legal nullity, and secondly, whether a wrongful dismissal only terminates employment if accepted by the employee. The court was also required to consider the effect of a purported demotion to an inferior position.
A majority of the High Court (Rich, Dixon, McTiernan, and Williams JJ.) held that Regulation 14 of the National Security (Man Power) Regulations, which prohibited the termination of employment in a protected undertaking without the written permission of the Director-General of Man Power, rendered the purported dismissals ineffectual in law. The court reasoned that the regulation imposed a prohibition on the termination of the employment relationship itself, not merely on the contractual provisions governing it. Therefore, any attempt to terminate the employment without the requisite permission was a nullity. The court also affirmed that a wrongful dismissal does not terminate the employment unless accepted by the employee, and that a demotion to an inferior position, if not accepted, does not terminate the employment.
The High Court, by majority, varied the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, with the court affirming that Watson's employment was not terminated by the purported dismissals on 29th September 1944. The matter was remitted for determination of the quantum of damages.