W. DIMOCK AND CO. IN EXPLANATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 September 1916, Page 7

W. DIMOCK AND CO. IN EXPLANATION.

To the Editor. ■Sir.—The letter you forward, signed by "Minnie Strut" would not have been referred to by me were it not for the fact that it is calculated to leave your readers under a wrong im, Vession, but I cannot allow gresssly ini. 'Urate statement.-; to remain, without acquainting your readers with the true josition. Let me Pay that Mis, Street's wag not engaged for two or three years, or for any term. The late Mr. Street was a weekly hand only, and his cnJHgcmcnt was terminable at any time. Ts it, therefore, reasonable to suppr- 0 that the company would take on an untried youth of seventeen for a fixed period, knowing that it was extremely i 'btful as to whether he would give sat fiction or not. It was merely agreed to V:'ept him to take the place of the late 'Tr. Street provided he was satisfactory, I deny that any promise was made such is Mrs. Street refers to. Subsequently it was found that Mrs. Street's son H , j not giving the attention necessary to <jiir work as he was employed at a ro< tor parage in New Plymouth. I wrote,- irs. Street on several occasions informing ler that the arrangement was. not at all satisfactory, and that her son could not do what the company required of him while working at another business.

On March 1 the company wrote :~ "We regret to say that we can only consider the position as unsatisfactory. We quite agree with you that it would be unwise to take your boy away from mechanical work, foi- the purpose of pig buying only. At the same time you will quite appreciate that the business of this company must go on. We have asked Mr. Street to call and see us, as some better arrangement will have to be made." At the time Mr. Street had not left New Zealand. The position was not terminated for some little time after this, as the company wished to give Mrs. Street every consider ;ion, but in spite of repeated warning! improvement was shown. On May 20 at the close of the season, I wrote' that Mrs. Street's soil would be put on half-pay. That was only in common with some of our other buyers. The wage of £S was a weekly one only. Mrs. Street was paid in full to the end of July, and she was advised that Messrs. Dimock and Co. would be taken over by the N.Z. Farmers' Coop. Bacon and Meat Packing Co., Ltd., At no time did I say that Mi. Burke woujd take the place of our New Plymouth buyer. What I did say was that Mr. Burke should keep an eve on the district until a buyer was appointed. That is quite a different thing. As a matter )f fact the company lias been to no little trouble in finding a suitable man and would have preferred that Mrs. Street's son could have carried on the work to our satisfaction. But it is quite obvious that the youth could not be expected to carry on his trade as a motor mechanic and remain a buyer for this company at the same time. Mrs, Street had her choice and if she was foolish enough not to allow licr son to devote his whole time to our work, then she surely cannot blame the company for the consequences. The company did not ignore Mrs. Street's letter. On the contrary, a reply was sent on September 12. In conclusion, lot me say that the company

■ ■« done all that it promised to do and all that the case admits of, and if Mrs. Street can prove that a definite promise was made such as she states, she surely ha. l : hei remedy in a Court of .Justice. I very much regret being compelled to write through the columns of your paper, and would not have done so were it not for the unwarrantable attack maile by Mrs. Street, which I certainly would not leave unchallenged. A great deal more could be said in justification of the company's action, but no good purpose would be served by setting forth particulars which only concern those immediately interested.—l am, etc., S. ]•:. BAUON,

Manager for W. Dimock and Co., Ltd. P.S.—Since writing the above I have received a letter from Mr. John Burkp of Eltham, in which he gives a complete denial to Mrs. Street's statement that her son was engaged for a period of two or three years, or ujitil her husband's return.