SHOP GIRLS’ DRESS

Hokitika Guardian, 5 September 1930, Page 6

SHOP GIRLS’ DRESS

BREACH OF AWARD

[United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.]

WELLINGTON, Sept. 4

Because the shop girls ol a large Wellington drapery house clrose to dress in coloured gowns, instead of the regulation black aprons, the company was prosecuted by the Labour Department in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. The Magistrate (Mr J. S. Barton) in dismissing the information, said ,)that the action...should not have been brought and he adopted the unusual procedure of allowing costs against the Crown. The Inspector of Awards (Mr Georgeson) sued the D.I.C. (Air Watson) to recover .-CIO as penalty for a breach of the Wellington Retail Shop Assistants Award, the alleged breach being that the defendant Coy. had required its female employees to dress in coloured garments in place of black dresses and aprons usually worn; and that the Company had failed to provide such garments free of cost to its employees.

Mr Georgeson said that it had been brought to the notice of the Department that when the defendant company opened its new premises, the employees in each department had adopted a definite colour scheme' for the dresses, and that these dresses were not provided free, and he claimed that iet was a breach of the award for an employer to require his assistants to use any dress other than an ordinary black dress, unless the employer paid for it. Mr Philip Sahnond, Assistant Secretary of the Union stated that, on' Various visits to the 1)1.C. in the course of his duty, he had noticed coloured frocks, and had ascertained that the employees were required to provide them themselves. Cross-examined, he staled he had made no enquiries from the management and had received no complaints from the staff.

Dorothy Wellings, sales-woman in the mantle department, said the assistants in her department had selected their own colour, and the garments were made oh the premises, considerably below the ordinary cost. The proposal- to adopt colours had come from the mantle staff, who felt that they would like to dress in different colours from, year to -year. No instructions had been received from the management, and the manager had been Surprised when lie saw them, No member of the.staff, .had complained. Two • other,! employees gave similar evidence. ..., ...

The inspector,. >vas proceeding to call further evidence, when Air, Watson objected that as it was clear .that the charge must. And I, it would be wasting time to call further evidence.

After the -Inspector had intimated that the evidence which he proposed to call was similar, the., Magistrate stated that if was. iffeaf that fio offence had heeq'.cpmmitted, .the .brighter frocking hayjng. been adopted at, the .staff’s , reques|. [ „ -JJe . proposed to dismiss the. caser .

Mr Watson urged that, although unusual) » t .this. wa&-.ft* case- in— which, the Labour Department should pay the costs, as it was one which should not have been brought^.,and he was .perfectly satisfied that it:had been .commenced at the'instigation of the Union Secretary.

The,'Magistrate stated that it was most unusual to allow any costs against the Department in such cases, hut he would mark his disapproval of the proceedings by allowing £1 Is costs against the Labour Department.