ARTISTS CLAIM IN COURT

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23003, 24 April 1940, Page 14

ARTISTS CLAIM IN COURT

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL ADVERTISING AGENCY’S EMPLOYEE •<" A claim made by a commercial artist against the N. Hill-Skinner Advertising Agency was heard before Mr F. p. Reid, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Alfred Clyde Webster, a commercial artist, claimed £3OO as damages from the agency, alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed irom defendant’s service. The statement of claim said that plaintiff had been engaged to work for defendant for not less than two years for £l2 a week. Mr W. F. Tracy, instructed by Mr H. P. Smith, represented plaintiff, and Mr C. S. Thomas the defendant. Webster said that he had been chief artist for the “Sydney Morning Herald” for eight years, and came to Christchurch to work for defendant in April, 1939. After the war began he had agreed to work for £9 a week. From March 1, 1940, he had been out of the employment of defendant, who had dismissed him, and he had since been earning £4 a week on the average by “free .lance” work. His employer had always been very complimentary about the work he had done, Webster said. , Mr Thomas, for defendant, said that the terms of the agreement were :3ndefinite. A term of “two or three years” had been mentioned in a letter, which was one of the communications which went to make up the agreement, yet in the statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that he had been engaged for “not less than two years,” Mr Thomas said. He submitted that plaintiff should be non-suited, as there was no enforceable contract in existence. Letters and cablegrams were read. Safiiples of Webster’s work done before and after his engagement by defendant Were also exhibited, and Mr Thomas submitted that these showed that Webster had not come up to reasonable expectations. Skinner, to Mr Thomas, said that Webster’s work was disappointing, and he was very slow. He was not a paying preposition, in fact. To Mr Tracy. Skinner admitted that he had not cited bad work as a reason for cutting Webster’s salary at the time when that was done. Mr Thomas said that he did not rely on evidence of the quality of Webster’s work to justify termination of the contract. Edmund Wallace Cotter, an advertising ajgent, gave evidence about obtaining rights to sell space on Railway Department • hoardings, and said that with Skinner he was prepared to assign the artist’s work exclusively to Webster, who, he felt confident, could do it. . “I. am convinced that a settlement is possible,” said the Magistrate, when the evidence was finished. “In the negotiations which led up to the action, an offer was made which left it open to Webster to obtain work. In view of what I have been told abo i future contracts I think that practical 'point of view both parties should sink their differences and come to a settlement.” The Magistrate said that Skinner and Cotter needed an artist to work for them, and Webster had the qualifications. If plaintiff had only been able to earn a limited amount in the last seven weeks, he should try the offer out as he was married. He was of the view that the contract was for employment of uncertain duration, the Magistrate said. The case was adjourned, to be brought on again at seven days* notice from either party.