PIESARE J.: On 3 November 1988, I dismissed the claim with ¢10,000 costs to the defendants. I now proceed to give my reasons.
The case of the plaintiffs shows that the four plaintiffs were painters in the employment of the defendants until some time in the afternoon of 11 December 1980 when the plaintiffs were assigned some painting job, and they worked on the job up to noon and had their break. It was their case that after the break they went to the outhouse to mix some fresh paints. That while they were at the outhouse, the managing director came to them; he asked them to pack all the paints into his car, and they did; he then drove the plaintiffs in his car to his office, and dismissed them from their employment for allegedly sleeping on duty, without giving the plaintiffs any opportunity to explain themselves. They were asked to collect their entitlements but they refused to do so, and took this action.
The plaintiffs deny that they were sleeping on duty. The defendants did not give…