Maealiuaki v D.J. Gubbay & Co (New Hebrides) Pty Ltd [1976] VUNHJC 25; Civil (A) 43 of 1976 (1 October 1976)

JOINT COURT OF THE NEW HEBRIDES

Case No. 2398
Judgment No. (A) 43/76
of the 1st October 1976

SIONE MAEALIUAKI

v.

D.J. GUBBAY & Co (New Hebrides) Pty Ltd.

TRADE DISPUTE JUDGMENT

The applicant's claim against the respondent company, as set out in his letter of 13th January 1976, may be summarised as follows:-

(i)	leave pay unpaid by respondent	$ 1628-00
(ii)	savings to employer on fares not paid	$ 2397-14
(iii)	long service gratuity	$ 1425-00
		$ 5450-14

It was not possible for a fixture to be made before 27 August 1976 at which time the case was part heard then adjourned to today for continuation. Meanwhile the applicant had left the territory and gone to Hawaii to seek fresh employment.

The Court received the report of the Inspector of Labour with the applicant's letter attached, heard evidence from the applicant's wife, Sononifa MAEALIUAKI, and from Neil Henry Bull, Inspector of Labour. The respondent company was represented by Mr. D. HUDSON. No witnesses were called by the defence. Two contracts, one dated 4 November 1968 and the other, 1 February 1974, were submitted in evidence, and today letters dated 1 September 1976 and 16 September 1976 from the Deputy Principal Immigration Officer were received in evidence.

The applicant worked continuously for the company from May 1965 until December 1974. Employment was under a series of two year contracts. The applicant's entitlement under such contracts and under the joint legislation was eight weeks in May 1967, again in July 1969, again in September 1971, again in November 1973 then one month in December 1974. In all the applicant had taken and been paid for 4 weeks' leave in Tonga in September 1970.

The applicant's explanation was that on each occasion when his leave became due and he requested leave he was asked by his employers to postpone leave because of the company's volume of work at the time; he accepted such postponements on each occasion, since he was reassured by his employer that he would be fully recompensed in due course. The applicant's wife testified that he applied for leave, but on each occasion was told that the job was too important and he was required to stay in Santo and "would receive a good compensation". She said "he was always asked to adjourn his leave".