Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Dismissal of woman ‘came to a head’

A Christchurch law firm’s decision to dismiss a clerical worker “crystallised” when it found she was eligible for adult wages, the Arbitration Court was told yesterday. A partner in the law firm of Papprill, Hadfield and Aldous, Mr William Mather, told the Court that the firm had had reservations about the woman’s work for some time. These reservations “came to a head” when it found that she had turned 21, he said yesterday.

Evidence in the case had been heard also on Tuesday. The Canterbury Clerical Workers’ Union claimed that Miss Catherine Tilley was unjustifiably dismissed because she was eligible for adult wages. Her dismissal was an attempt to have her work done more cheaply by someone younger, according to the union’s advocate, Mr Mike Dawson.

The union is seeking $1569

for the dismissal, $3378 for loss of wages and further compensation for distress caused. The Court, comprising Chief Judge Hom and Messrs David Jacobs and Terry Weir, reserved its decision. Mr Mather said Miss Tilley was not dismissed because of incompetence. She was a satisfactory office junior. Normally, however, juniors were either promoted after about a year or they left Miss Tilley had been a junior for 2% years. She had not shown enough ability to be promoted and had become “a blockage in our system,” he said.

The law firm’s advocate, Mr Tony Willy, said that Miss Tilley’s age could not be considered in isolation. Having reached the age of 21 she had “outgrown the position of junior in circumstances where no promotion was possible,” he said.

The difference between what she had been earning and the amount she would get as an adult was small. It was incorrect to suggest that the law firm was motivated only by a desire to save money, he said.

Mr Dawson said that Miss Tilley was a loyal employee who had worked hard in her own time to improve her qualifications. Nothing had been said to suggest that her position was not permanent, he said.

On Tuesday the court heard that Miss Tilley worked for the firm from October, 1981, to June last year. She turned 21 in October, 1983, but it was not until the following March that the matter of adult wages was raised with the wages clerk by another employee. Two days later she had been given her dismissal notice, Miss Tilley said on Tuesday.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19850314.2.92.3

Bibliographic details

Press, 14 March 1985, Page 16

Word Count
404

Dismissal of woman ‘came to a head’ Press, 14 March 1985, Page 16

Dismissal of woman ‘came to a head’ Press, 14 March 1985, Page 16

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert