CHRISTIAN ANDERSON v GEORGE MOON (Court of Session)

The respondent replied, that the advocator was not hired exclusively to either mill; that it was the practice to transfer spinners from one mill to the other, when circumstances rendered it necessary; that it formed part of the agreement made with the advocator, that she might be required to work at both mills; that in order to remove any obstacle arising from the greater distance of Russell Mill from her residence, he would agree to provide a person to carry her victuals to her, if she went to that mill.

The judicial declaration of the advocator having been taken, and a proof led, the Sheriff-substitute pronounced the following judgment:

The respondent pleaded —Servants engaged to work at one place are bound to do so at other places, unless the work is essentially different, or where the servants would suffer hardship by being so transferred. Here no practical hardship has been proved; and besides, it has been proved by Smith, the manager, that her sister was warned that the advocator might be called on to work at the other mill.

Lord Gillies .—I think it is impossible that Moon could have a right to send this girl from one mill to another. There is no agreement to that effect proved satisfactorily. I am not in general inclined to favour the objection, that there is only the testimony of one witness; but here the respondent would not admit the advocator's sister, the only person by whom he could prove that the advocator had ever got any intimation that she might possibly be transferred to the other mill. He has therefore himself to blame for his failure.

Lord President .—I am of the same opinion. It is enough that some hardship might have been experienced by the girl from the change. It does not signify that she made no objections to go from Russell Mill to the Hospital Mill, because it might be more convenient for her; but that was not to say that she was, at the pleasure of her master, to be sent back again to work at Russell Mill.