SALESWOMEN’S DRESSES

Taranaki Daily News, 5 September 1930, Page 3

SALESWOMEN’S DRESSES

COLOURS REPLACE BLACK DRAPERY FIRM PROSECUTED. MAGISTRATE DISMISSES CLAIM • By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Because the shop girls of a large Wellington drapery house chose to dress in coloured gowns instead'of the regulation black aprons, the company was prosecuted by the Labour Department in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. The magistrate (Mr. J. S. Barton) in dismissing the information said that the action should not have been brought and adopted the unusual procedure of allowing costs against the- Crown.

The inspector of awards (Mr. Georgeson) sued the D.I.C. (Mr. Watson) to recover £lO as a penalty for a breach of the Wellington retail shop assistants’ award, the alleged breach being that the defendant company had required its female employees to dress in coloured garments in place of the black dresses and aprons usually worn, and that the company had failed to provide such free of cost to the employees. Mr. Georgeson said that it had been brought to the notice of the department that when the defendant company opened its new. premises the'employees in each department had adopted a definite colour scheme for dresses, and that these dresses were not provided free, and he claimed that it was a breach of the award for- an employer to require his assistants to use any dress other than an ordinary black dress unless the employer paid for it. Philip Salmond, assistant secretary of the union, stated that on various visits to the D.I.C. in the course of his duty, he had noticed coloured frocks and had ascertained that the employees were required to provide them themselves. Cross-examined, he stated he had made no inquiries from the management, and he had received no complaints from the staff. Dorothy Wellings, a saleswoman in the mantle department, said that the assistants in her department had selected their own colour and the garments were made on the premises considerably below ordinary cost. The proposal to adopt colours had come from the mantle staff, who felt that they would like to dress in different colours from yeaXjLo year.. No instructions had been received from the management, and the manager had been surprised when he saw them. No member of the staff had complained. Two other employees gave similar evidence, and the inspector was proceeding to call further evidence when Mr. Watson objected that as it was clear that the charge must fail it would only be wasting time to call further evidence.

After the inspector had 1 intimated that the evidence which he proposed to call was similar, the magistrate stated that it was clear that no offence had been committed, brighter frocking having been adopted at the staff’s request. He proposed to dismiss the case.

' Mr. Watson urged that, although unusual, this was a case in which the Labour Department should pay costs, as it was one which should not have been brought, and he was perfectly satisfied it had been commenced at the instigation of the union secretary. The magistrate stated that it was most unusual to allow any costs against the department in such cases, but he'would mark his disapproval of the proceedings by allowing £1 Is costs against the Labour Department.