Unjust dismissal alleged

Press, 13 March 1985, Page 30

Unjust dismissal alleged

A Christchurch law firm dismissed a clerical worker because it wanted to avoid paying her adult wages, the Arbitration Court was told yesterday. The Canterbury Clerical Workers’ Union said the woman was unjustifiably dismissed from the law firm of Papprill, Hadfield and Aldous after she became eligible for adult wages.

Mr Mike Dawson, the union’s advocate, said that Miss Catherine Tilley had turned 21 in October, 1983.

The law firm knew that at the time, and it also knew it was obliged to increase her wages accordingly. It consciously decided not to, he said.

Miss Tilley’s dismissal was “no more than an attempt by her employer to have the duties performed by her done more cheaply by a younger employee,” said Mr Dawson. Her .work was not exclusively done by people aged under 21, and there was no specific duties for only “juniors” in the award, he

said. Miss Tilley’s grandfather, Mr Bernard Steffens, told the Court that he had been visited by a partner in the law firm, Mr William Mather, about seven weeks after Miss Tilley was given her dismissal notice. Mr Steffens said that Mr Mather had spent several hours “trying to use us in an effort to get Catherine to call off the union.” He said that Mr Mather had told him a court case would hurt Miss Tilley’s chances of re-employment. He tried to justify the dismissal and he mentioned a cash settlement, said Mr Steffens. He and Mr Mather were related through marriage, and Mr Mather occasionally visited him. They had never discussed Miss Tilley’s work before, said Mr Steffens. The union is seeking $1569 for the dismissal, $3378 for the subsequent loss of wages and other compensation from the court for the distress caused to Miss Tilley.

Mr Mather said that Miss Tilley was employed as an

office junior. When she started she was told she would be considered for promotion if she was capable. She coped with her job but did not have the skills necessary for promotion, he said. He said he visited Mr Steffens to let him know the. firm was trying to treat Miss Tilley fairly. He did mention a cash settlement but he believed it was Mr Steffens who said a court case would not be to her advantage, said Mr Mather. The day the firm knew Miss Tilley had been underpaid, the amount owing was given to her, he said. Miss Tilley told the Court

that she had been dismissed two days after another employee inquired about her eligibility for an increase, five months after she turned 21. She had applied for other jobs in the same firm before she was dismissed. One of these' was for a receptionist. But one of the partners, Mr Keith Hadfield, had told her she was not attractive enough to be a receptionist, she said. In evidence Mr Hadfield later denied this. The law firm’s advocate is Mr A. A. Willy. The court comprises Chief Judge J. R. P. Horn and Messrs D. Jacobs and T. R. Weir. The case will continue today.