On December 1, 1934, plaintitt was Jengaged on a. five-years contract, funder which he was to devote him= self to. the company's business and bbe subject to the orders of the [Coys managing director, the contract to end Immediately, without notice ar compensation, If he were found guilty misconduct or failed to ful his obligations. The sexual grounds of Aismissal were the plalntifs gross Insolence one morning to the manag-Ing director in the presence of the [company's staff in the company's main, 'ME. MeNeill then quoted from the arbitrator's finding, in which the Jat lor said it was obvious the plaintist had not behaved in a proper manner towards the managing director and that "suck ation in front of the company's staff was not to be:
almost, he goes on to say that they tolerated Ye, in the same breath were nol entitled to dismiss him, It was an absurd conclusion, which, in my. submission," continued Bir. M2- Neill, "no court should uphold."
Asking for the awat: aside, Mr. McNeill so was inconsistent with the facts, inconsistent with itself, and bad in law: fu the face of It"
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.