Hat-Designer Claims Wrongful Dismissal

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 749, 23 August 1929, Page 11

Hat-Designer Claims Wrongful Dismissal

ACTION FOR £228 . AGREEMENT BREACH ALLEGED | J !< An Australian expert cutter and designer of ladies’ and women’s J hats, who was engaged by the Auckland firm. New Zealand Millinery Supplies, Ltd., for 23 months T told an unusual story in support 1 of his claim for alleged wrongful t dismissal to Mr. Justice Herdman | in the Supreme Court today. THE claim was brought by Harry ( Dawson, who sued Mrs. Alece ] Eeles, of New Zealand Millinery Sup- > plies. Ltd.. Robert Chambers, and < Harry Bertram Leaper. a manufac- - turer, for £22S for alleged wrongul dismissal under a two-year contract which did not expire until August 27, 1929. i The defence denied wrongful dis- 1 missal, which was alleged to be due 1 to breaches of agreement by Dawson. ' Mr. Singer, for plaintiff, said that Dawson denied all allegations that * he was in the service of the Northern Hat Factory, nor had he worked for I any other firm during the time he was in the employment of New Zealand * Millinery Supplies, Ltd. Counsel went i on to explain that Leaper, one of the 1 partners in New Zealand Millinery ! Supplies, Ltd., who was an official in * the Customs Department, was alleged i to have manipulated the oversea < articles imported by rival manufac- 1 turers, and of having obtained the 1 hats and having them copied. Subsequently the Collector of Customs was allowed to inspect Dawson’s agreement with New Zealand Millinery Supplies, - which showed that Leaper was a part- J ner in the firm. , This resulted, said Mr. Singer, in t an inquiry into Leaper’s conduct in i the Customs. Leaper learned that ] the agreement had been shown to the ] Collector of Customs. Subsequently, i it is alleged, Dawson was threatened that they “would get him in the end.” "Dawson was clearly shown cutting college serge hats, it being impossible to confuse these actions with snipping waste. A tap on the window drew Dfwson’s attention, and he dropped the scissors, burned green and bolted into an office. We scrambled down off the roof, and met Lamont at the door, the latter saying. ‘That’s nothing. He (Dawson) often does that ; for us,” said witness. Next morning Dawson remarked to witness, “I don’t suppose I start this morning,” but offered no further ex- ' planation. Later in the day the notice of dismissal was given to Dawson at the Northern Hat Factory. j Harry Dawson said that he was engaged in September, 1927, in Syd- : ney by Leaper, who stated his partner ’ in New Zealand Millinery Supplies , was Mrs. Alice Eeles. He entered into ] a two-year contract at £l2 weekly. There was no disagreement between him and his employers until December 8 last year, when he received a registered letter from the collector of customs who wanted to see a copy of his contract with New Zealand Millinery Supplies. The contract was shown to the collecter who called that night, the agreement showing that Leaper was one of the partners in the business. A few weeks later Mrs. Eeles approached him, with “a nice sort of mongrel you are.” She went on to explain that she had received advice from Wellington that the agreement was in the office of the chief collector of customs. “She hurled a tirade of abuse at me, calling me a traitor, mongrel and a pimp,” said witness. He was then given his holiday and told to stay away until sent for. Twice his holiday was extended for a week. Prior to this, he had received from time to time as many as four women’s hats to copy, these being new and overseas importations. He had to take measurements of these hats and leave them in the office for Leaper, who took an active part in the business, and was present at the shop three or four times daily. New Zealand Millinery Supplies did not import made-up hats. On February 25, he received a letter giving him’ six months, and was told if he worked the contract out it would be made unpleasant for him. “Mrs. Eeles told me she would get me in the finish,” added witness, who said that his quarters were shifted to the back, j made as uncomfortable as possible, j and he was humiliated. He was notified of his dismissal for breaches of agreement on April 23. In January Mr. and Mrs. Eeles had suggested that the agreement should be terminated, offering to pay plaintiff's fare to Sydney and to send him a sum of money there. He had secured ca: t al work with the Northern Hat Factory since the middle of j July, but had only earned £l6. WATCHED FROM VERANDAH Under cross-examination by Mr. Northcroft, Dawson declared that the night prior to his dismissal Mr. and Mrs. Eeles had climbed on to the verandah of premises adjoining the Northern Hat Factory, and saw' witness in that firm’s cutting room. He had gone there to telephone Mr. McIntosh, a Customs official, and had idled away half an hour waiting for a call by snipping waste with the scissors. He did not know he was being watched until the observers tapped on the window. He Admitted this act would look suspicious, but he had taken no steps to prove his actions were perfectly innocent. The proprietor of the Northern Hat Factory asked the Eeles why they did ; not come upstairs. Dawson said that when he commenced work with N.Z. Millinery Supplies, Mrs. Eeles had warned him that a designer for the Northern Hat Factory, who had been previously employed by her, would be a good man to avoid. He. however, became acquainted with this man, though Mrs. Eeles objected to this friendship. He denied threatening Mrs. Eeles to leave i file was not paid £2O a week, or, saying that the other designer had offered him this salary. No objection was raised by Eeles or Mrs. Eeles when he informed them a customer of the Northern Hat Company owed that firm £IOO. (Proceeding.)