WHY WINDOW WAS SHUT

NZ Truth, Issue 1182, 26 July 1928, Page 2

WHY WINDOW WAS SHUT

Thought Her Girls Were Making Eyes At The Boys

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Gisborne Representative.)

,X It is not often that the plutocrat patrons of elaborate drapery establishments are given an insight into what goes on behind the scenes. ' * '

GENERALLY speaking, they order their frocks, or hats, or other things, have them duly delivered, disport themselves •m them, and leave the trifling matter of payment to father or husband, as the case may be. If anyone thinks^the matter of dress is really so simple, let them read of the trouble which milady's frocks caused, m the emporium of William Pettie and Co., who claim, and not ; without right, to be.Gisborne's leading drapers, etc. An objectionable porter, heads who were insulting, and girls who not only were apt to make eyes at men through the window, but actually went on strike, are only some of the recent incidents, it was alleged, of life m Pettie's dressmaking department. Can it be wandered at that Edith Mary Eastwick, after experience m some of the' leading countries of the world, found Gisborne— with a capital "G\ as she said— a little out of the ordinary? Is it surprising that Edith Mary ultimately decided to deprive Petties of her valuable services? Anyhow, Bhe did. And when she left she presented a bill for £50, made up as follows: Salary to date, of .dismissal, £12 125.; damages for/ wrongful dismissal, £25 45.; overtime, £12 4s. Had the bill been presented m the ordinary way, the public might even now be as Ignorant _- as ever as to the whole business, but when Edith. Mary 'used the- court as a 1 collecting agency she provided her " . erstwhile employers with an advertisement for which they had not contracted. •'•'•'■■"'.__. - With the aid of Lawyer Stan. Beaufoy, She told the court her tale of woe. There was nothing of the novice about ; her. .New York, London, Paris, Melbourne,; Sydney, and, qf i course, Gisborne, had had the/ pleasure of seeing their womenfolk turned out. according to fashion's decree, at the hands of Edith- Mary Eastwick. It was from Sydney that Thomas Edward TOneycliffe— which is another way of saying Pettie and Co.— engaged the new dressmaker for' th,e firm. Edith could hardly complain at the recompense she received" for: her labors, for each week she signed her name against an entry: of £6 6s. on the pay-roll. , •■■•■'■. ' ■ . _. It was. unfortunate that the job lasted less than three . months. Her first trouble had been with the porter, who; she said, was most objectionable until she slipped him five shillings. Then she. found that the girls under her were not amenable to the discipline to which she had been accustomed m I»aris and London and Melbourne and New York, and all the other places she had been ln. Edith had declined to allow the girls to have the windows open at the bottom, because the windows over, the way concealed the .telegraph operators, and they know . their Bparks. . • • Discovering this, . she concluded that it would be.; a/ case of dressmakers versus operators, and as she' reckoned she wasn't conducting a matrimonial agency, she ordered the windows to remain closed. "■-■•' Mr. Harre, one of the departmental heads, had been rude to her m 'front of the girls, this being his fa.vorite method of taking, her down, she confided.::. .' She had. fur ther trouble with him over a veil.' Harre wanted, her to quote a cli&nt £16 165.. f0r it, but as it was' only costing £8 10s. m Sydney she" considered the price too. hot, and told him to do his own dirty work, yrhe real. trouble came when she decided /to sack ahe oost s the girls. i Theairi WAUljjji'.t be sacked, and

Fashion's Decree

when Edith insisted that she should leave, all the girls went. Trade unionism wasn't m it. Harre investigated the matter and found the girls- at the Labor Department. He brought them, all back, but they gave 24 hours' notice. Edith declined to climb down /"for the sake of the firm," and when the girls were kept on she decided she couldn't stop, so she left a note saying she could not carry on any longer, and stopped at home. "When Toneycliffe called the following day she was m bed, and he sat down ai^d stroked her head, apparently to. some effect, for she agreed to go back. Womanlike, however, she changed her mind a fortnight later, arid this time left for good, the direct -cause of her departure being another row with Harre, when, he said, if she did not like the position she must go. Edith added that only five of the girls were efficient. As for Harre, she could never get any horse-sense from him, while Toneycliffe' hadn'jt kept faith with her. •Lawyer Burnard, for the defence, explained that a cheque for £12/12/---had been paid the ' plaintiff, and this she had m her possession. That settled the flrst item, except that the firm was entitled to a refund «of £2 145., as this amount had 1 been -overpaid. . ; The Item for wages m lieu of notice also disappeared because she left of her own ac- »"< _ cord. without giving nqtice, and had written giving as her redson the fact that she could not get on with anyone from the porter to the 'shareholders. As far as the overtime claim was concerned, if she had worked at night it was without permission and without -the necessary permit, from the L^bor Department. After hearing evidence for the defence, Magistrate Levvey decided to allow only £8 for overtime, and costs. When Lawyer Burnard asked J&r allowance to be made for the £2/14/---overpaid, the magistrate said if that claim was made he would increase the amount of overtime to. £9. . Lawyer 'Burnard maintained, however, that the judgment could not now be increased, and after some argument the magistrate remarked: "Your contention is arithmetically correct, but I don't appreciate the merit of it." . Judgment was entered, therefore, for £8 less the £2/14/-.