Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1913-07-19
Popular Talks on Law.
rnA sEavANr,s DlsaissAL

rH3 sERy
u Waltsr X. TowssA A. =
AZ very large proportion a VI
must either direct the work q those
who serve w or follow the directions
Of those whom we serve, the ques-
ton Of the duties which employse
owes to employer u indeed vital
The method that an easpioyer usu-
ally adopts to enforce his authority
10 to dismiss from his service the en-.
ployee who fails TO ebay hb COM
mands, or perform the duties ex.
pected Of him. The fear OF losing
the Job Is what holds most en-
ployees to their duties. The employee
usually enfOrces his rights By quilt
ting when he Ia ordered to perform
task which he believes unreason-
able. In cases where the employees
has been hired for no definite period,
and there II no understanding that
the employment Ii to continue tor
any period, the .relation Of employer
and employee ID coutinue9 merely
It the will ct the parties md may
DO readily dissolved BY either. But
where there IL . definite agreement
"a contract--between emplcyer and
employee, fixing term OF employ
nent, the employer may not dis
charge the employee without ade-
luate grounds.
When we speak Of master" IN
the popular sense we usually think of
one who has wide authority over tho
person OF an employee who Il N .
decidedly inferior position. We IRE
inclined to think OF ) Servant" 40
one serving In q somewhat meniAl ca
aacity. But such 10 not the meaning
OF master and servant In legal term!
.nology. The words master and ser.
yant are as broad 10 employer and
employee, including al employers
and all employees, whatever their
rank, Whatever the Importance OF
responsibility Of their calling. The
general manager with the widest NJ
thority employed At salary q 9
hundred thousand dollars year ID.
In law, servant. The simplest en-
oloyer Ii master
The duty Of the servant to obey
the master IL fundamental. II b Of
the essence Of the contract Of enn-
ployment and must always DO recog1
nized. A promise by the servant
10 obey the lawful and reasonable
orders Of his master within the scope
Of his contract ID implied by law
said New York Judge. Submits
sion to the masters vii ID the law
OF the contract" An authority on
this subject has written, Where q
servant deliberately violates his mas
.er's orders, or refuses to obey them
when given, he b clearly guilty Of
the grossest breach Of contract. His
luty 10 to obey the master In all
things for which he became bound
expressly. or in which obediance Is
implied from the nature Of the SER
vice undertaken.
The employers usual redress tor
q refusal on the part OF his servant
to obey, Is dismissal from his SER
vice. This right OF 1 master to dis
miss q servant who has violated this
duty OF obediance Is firmly settled.
As to Just what amounts to such a
defiance Of proper authority a. to-
justify IN employer IN Diminishing an
employee whom 1t has been agreed
Is to serve Tor q definite period ID
the question that 10 Of most immed.
late interest and Importance to en-
ployer and employee.
Spaine was q farm laborer In the
employ Of Arnott for the usual term
1t one year. He usually breakfasted)
at O'Clock and dined at 2. One
day Arnott ordered him to 50 with
some horses to the marsh which was
q mile off. before dinner, dinner
then being ready. The plaintiff said
that he had done his due, and would
not 90 until he had had his dinner.
Arnott told him to 60 about his busi-
ness. and he went without making
any submission to the instructions.
Spaine later sued Arnott because oil
wrongful dismissal, seeking damages
for the breach Of contract Of employ
ment, but he failed to recover.
II Spaine refused to obey his
masters order." said the Judge,
II think he was warranted in turn
ing him away. 1t would be exceed
lngly inconvenient IL the servant
were to be permitted to set himself
UP to control his master in his do
nestle relations. such as the time