River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-11-27

! Arnott because of the wrongful dis
missal, seeking damages for the
breach of contract of employment,
but he failed to recover.
If Spaine refused to obey his
masters orders" said the judge,
II think he was warranted in turn
ing him away 1t would be exceed
ingly inconvenient if the servant
were to be permitted to set himself
up to control his master in his do
nestle relations, such as the time of
dinner. After a refusal on the part
of the servant to perform his work
the master is not bound to keep
him as burthensome and useless
servant to the end of the year."
This case is rather extreme, and
many courts would probably now
rule such an order as unreasonable,
and refusal to obey it not sufficient
grounds for Dismissal 1t illus
trates the undoubted principle that
a master may dismiss his servant
for a single act of disobedience.
A farm laborer who refused to
work during harvest time till 8
o'clock was held properly dismissed
as was also a coachman who,
against his employers express or
ders, carried friends of his own in
his employer carriage. A travel
ing salesman who refused to comply
with the request of his employer to
return his samples, the Superintend-
ent who refused to obey his super.
ior's orders to reinstate an employee,
and the teacher who refused to
reinstate pupil who was instructed
to do SO by the school board, were
all held to be properly dismissed
for such single acts of disobedience
Numberless examples might be dis
covered of instances of disobedience
that might have been held to justify
a dismissal.
Not only may a master dismiss a
disobedient servant, but he may al
so sue that servant and secure dam
ages for any injury which may have
been caused by reason of the SER
vaults J;Cnha5ianoa
While the general is that the DISC
bedience of any order is bre aCh of
the duty which the employee owes
to the employer, and SO a justifica-
ton for dismissal, there are certain
circumstances which will justify
servant in his disobedience. A ser
want need not obey an order which
is unreasonable, but an employee
should be very certain that the in
struction would be deemed obvious
ly and certainly unreasonable by
normal person before he disobey
for that reason. Nor need a SER
want obey the instructions which
are unlawful. Neither may an
employee be dismissed for failure
to obey orders instructing him to
perform services which are not pro-
perly within the duties for which he
was employed.
A servant may not be dismissed
for failure to obey an order in re-
gard to a matter of small import
auce and so trivial that the con-
tract of employment is not affected.
If the disobedience was uninten-
,ional, and in regard to matters of
no Importance, and the instructions
were in regard to matters of mere
detail and not of character to re-
Quire in all circumstances, strict
obedience the law will generally in
eist that there is not sufficient
grounds for the severing of the re-
ltion of master and servant.
A master may dismiss servant
aough the act in question was not
actually injurious to hint is
nough that there was a failure to
obey in matter of Importance, or
wilful disobedience of any charac-
ter of a proper order.
AS before stated, servant may
not be dismissed for failure TO obey
an instruction occurring services of
a kind different from those which
ne was hired TO perform. An en-
ployee is bound to perform the du-
ties he was engaged to do and no
J others. Thus a boy hired to care
| for sheep and assist at hay time,
cannot be required TO perform the
additional duty of taking charge of