Note
READING MERCURY, OXFORD GAZETTE, NEWBURY HERALD AND BERKS COUNTY PAPER, SATURDAY 11 JANUARY 1902
Page ?, first column under WOKINGHAM COUNTY BENCH:
EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN'S ACT
Job James, the manager of the Gas Works at the Royal Military College, was summoned by Francis Rose, stoker of York Town, under the Employers and Workmen's Act, the complainant seeking to recover 17s. 2d. wages and 30s. in lieu of notice, he being a weekly servant.
Mr. Percy St. Gerrans, Barrister, instructed by Mr. J. May, defended.
Complainant said that defendant dismissed him without notice on Boxing-day, and when remonstrated knocked him down. He claimed for four nights' work and also for a week's salary.
Mr. St. Gerrans cross-examined complainant with a view to showing that he had neglected his duty in not charging the retorts on Christmas Eve, but this he denied.
The defendant said he was working under the Government contractors as manager. Rose had been at work some months, and preferred to take the night shift. He had had to complain several times of his letting the heat down, and also of leaving his work without permission. On Christmas Eve witness found everything all right, but on Christmas morning, about 9, he found it impossible to make gas, and the retorts could not have been fed in the night. Price was then on the day shift. Witness had to turn in himself, and get his brother and another man to help, and they had to work all Christmas-day. He denied having assaulted the complainant.
A stoker named Price said that when he succeeded complainant at 5 a.m. on Christmas-day the retorts were not in working condition; they could not have been charged at 3 a.m. as they should have been. They worked best part of Christmas-day to start the work again.
Cross-examined: Rose did not complain to him that the coal was wet.
A lamplighter named Justice said he had frequently found Rose asleep while on duty, and had roused him. His general answer was "I have been over-doing it again."
Mr St. Gerrans contended that Rose was guilty of gross dereliction of duty, and that therefore under the Act the defendant had a perfect right to discharge him summarily.
The Magistrates dismissed the summons, but made no order as to costs.
- Last updated: June 9, 2022 19:52