SECRETS OF THE BEAUTY SHOP

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 269, 23 March 1911, Page 6

SECRETS OF THE BEAUTY SHOP

EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. ACTION BASED ON ALLEGED INADEQUATE INSTRUCTION. Christchurch, March 20. The secrets of the beauty-making shop were divulged in the Magistrate's Court this morning, when Eva Mabel Emerson sued Hemsley Burnett, Ltd., beauty specialists, of Christchurch, for £25, premium paid by the plaintiff to be taught the business. This, she alleged, had not been done. Mr. 11. W. Bishop, S.M., occupied the bench. Plaintiff said that some time ago in Hokitlka she met Mrs. Barrett, who traded under the name of Hemsley Burnett, Ltd. Mrs. Barrett suggested that plaintiff should learn the business and said that in three months she would be proficient. Plaintiff was to pay £25, which was paid on November 27. Plaintiff noticed that in the agreement tonics and pomades were omitted, and, as they were the most lucrative part of the business, costing only 3d and selling for ss, she saw that the teaching of these was added to the agreement. Plaintiff entered i jion her duties, which she performed lor.scicntiously and to the best of her ability. There was no rift in the lute until plaintiff made her complaint about inadequate teaching. After plaintiff had been learning for about six weeks defendant had suggested to plaintiff that she should open a shop in Oamaru and get her work done by defendant at bedrock prices. Plaintiff, in the cross-examination, said she could not say whether she had derived any benefit from the instruction, received or not. , The trouble with the instruction was that she had been taught no theory. At the end of the three months she asked Mrs. Barrett to take her on at a salary. Witness did not remember saying that defendant would have to take her on at a salary. She remembered telling defendant that she had her business reputation to lose, but plaintiff had not. Defendant said that other members of the company were her son, her daughter, and a Miss Fisher. Plaintiff had" told defendant that she had £IOO, and if defendant took her for three months for £25 she would then have enough money to start in the business. Defendant said she would be likely to earn £3 or £4 a wecik at massaging. Defendant further told plaintiff that if she proved herself capable she might take her on at the end of three months. She had had four or five pupils during the seven years that she had been in business, and the usual thing was to pay £25. To the Magistrate: Two of her old pupils were now carrying on business. To Mr. Hunter: Her practice with her pupils was to teach them the whole business and explain things to them by practical demonstration. Her other pupils had been quite competent to do the treatment at the end of three months. The custom in the profession was to get others to do the wig-making. Defendant employed a Mr. Iloldcrness. Plaintiff went upstairs to learn this and came downstairs after, and said she could not manage that part of the business. Defendant did not tell plaintiff that she would become an expert wigtaaker in three months. Witness heard that Miss Emerson had been talking about another employee's roughness to a chent, and later on plaintiff said that she was not learning enough. Plaintiff again went upstairs to the workroom, but grave complaints were made by the others, and when plaintiff asked witness loi a salary she told her that she was displeased. On being told that a salary would not be granted her plaintiff said she was going on frith the matter, as she had nothing to lose and defendant had her name and reputation. At this stage further hearing was adjourned.