SHOPGIRLS’ DRESSES

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1069, 5 September 1930, Page 10

SHOPGIRLS’ DRESSES

LABOUR DEPARTMENT CLAIMS BREACH OF AWARD CASE DISMISSED WITH COSTS Press Association Because the shopgirls of a large Wellington drapery house had chose j to dress ill coloured gowns, instead of j the regulation black, the drapery j 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, proceeded against the D.I.C. (Mr. Watson) to recover £lO as a penalty for an alleged breach of the Wellington retail shop assistants' award, the alleged breach being that the defendant company had required its female employees to dress in coloured garments, in place of the black dresses and aprons usually worn, and that the company had failed to provide such free of cost to the 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 the dresses were not provided free, and he claimed that it was a breach of the award for an employer to require his to use any dress other than*the ordinary black dress, unless the employer paid for it. NO COMPLAINTS RECEIVED Philip Salmond, assistant-secretary of the union, stated that on various visits to the D.I.C. in the course of his duty he had noticed the coloured frocks, and had ascertained that the employees were required to provide them themselves. Cross-examined, he stated that he had made inquiries from the management, and received no complaints from the staff. Dorothy Wellings, a saleswoman in the mantle department, said the assistants in her department had selected their own colour, and the garments j were made on the premises at consid- i erably below ordinary cost. The pro- | posal to adopt colours had come from ! the mantle staff, who felt that they I 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 he saw them. No member of the staff had complained. . Two other employees gave similar evidence, and the inspector was proceeding to call further evidence when Mr. Watson objected that, as it was j clear that the charge must fail, it would only be wasting time to call j further evidence. CASE TO BE DISMISSED After the inspector had intimated that the evidence which he proposed to call was similar, the magistrate stated that it was elear that no offence had been committed, the brighter frocking having been adopted at the staff’s request. He proposed to dismiss the case. Mr. Watson urged that, although it was unusual, this was a case in which the Labour Department should pay the , costs, as it was one which should not ! have been brought. He was perfectly satisfied that it had been commenced ■ at the instigation of the secretary of the union. The magistrate stated that it was most unusual to allow any costs against a department in such cases, hut he would mark his disapproval of the proceedings by allowing £1 Is costs against the Labour Department.