9/19/2023 0 Comments Hawaiian dredging![]() ![]() To plaintiff's statement of the purpose of his visit, Sheik replied that the camp was excellently operated, and he made inquiry of plaintiff as to whether he had any trouble of which he desired to complain. He first contacted Sheik when he called at the latter's office to offer suggestions for the improvement of the morale of the employees. Plaintiff had no trouble with any of his fellow employees or superiors. Sheik was the general superintendent of the work on the island. When plaintiff arrived at Midway Island on November 13, 1940, there were about 700 employees, and the crew with which he worked numbered from fifteen to eighteen. Viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff and resolving all conflicts in his favor, it appears from the record that the following facts were established.ĭefendants are construction contractors holding contracts for construction work for the United States Navy. Judgment for damages for breach of contract was rendered in favor of plaintiff and defendants have appealed.ĭefendants contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment, and that they had just cause to discharge plaintiff under the provisions of the contract. The court found that plaintiff performed all of the terms of the contract to be by him performed until prevented by defendants when they "arbitrarily and without just cause, contrary to Paragraph 8, or any other provision in said contract, refused to permit the plaintiff to continue performance of said contract." Pursuant to the provisions of the contract plaintiff was transported to and worked on Midway Island, a part of the Territory of Hawaii. It is understood that the Employee may be dismissed if requested by any Government official." It was agreed that plaintiff would pay his own expenses and transportation costs back to the United States "if he does not complete this contract, or if he is discharged in accordance with Paragraph 8." Defendants admitted the execution of the contract and that plaintiff commenced the performance thereof and continued to perform the same until April 21, 1941, but denied that he completely performed the contract or was prevented by defendants from further performance on that date, and alleged that they discharged plaintiff at said time pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the contract. In such case his term of service will then end and he forfeits his right to salary and expense allowance for returning to the United States. Paragraph 8 of the contract read: "If for cause the services of the Employee are not satisfactory to the Employer, or if he is not or does not show himself qualified for the position for which he is hired, or is negligent in his duties, or displays bad temper, or in the case of the immoderate use, in the opinion of the Employer, of alcoholic drinks, or the contraction or development of venereal disease, the Employee may be discharged without any further obligation resting upon the Employer. ![]() ![]() Plaintiff was employed by defendants under a written contract dated October 30, 1940, and executed in Los Angeles, calling for services as an iron worker on a construction job on "Pacific Islands." His wages were fixed at a stipulated sum per month. Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, Cedric L.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |