A COOK'S WAGES.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19149, 4 November 1927, Page 11

A COOK'S WAGES.

INSPECTOR FAILS IN CLAIM. Yesterday /afternoon the Arbitration Court heard evidence on a claim by the Labour Department for an alleged breach of award in connexion with the payment of a cook. Mr Justice Frazer was on the Bench, and with him were Messrs W. Scott (employers' representative) and A. L. Monteith (workers' representative). The Inspector of Awards claimed! a penalty of £lO from W. H. Mahttan, restaurateur, 748 Colombo street, for a breach of the tearoom and restaur rant employees'award. It was alleged in the statement of claim that defendant, being an employer bound by the said award, did, between April 24th, 1927, and June 25th, 102?, employ Mary Cross as chief cook in a kitchen in which four or more hands were employed, and paid her at the rate of £3 5s per week, instead of not lea* than the minimum weekly rates of pay for a chief cook prescribed in the award according to the number of persons employed. Mr R. Twyneham appeared for de* fendant. Mr P. C. Weenink appeared for the Department. v The question af issue was as to whether Mrs Cross was in fset chief cook or second oook. The Saspeotor's contention was that Mrs Cross was in fact the chief cook, controlling as she did aueh matters si the ordering and preparation of all meals served in the restaurant. For the defendant it was alleged thai Mrs Manltan had control of the kitohen, and that she superintended evsrythlng done In ordering and'preparation of food.

Court's Judgment. The Judge aaid the' case w*« one o< rather an unsatisfactory type. The Court discouraged the bringing of prosecutions at a Jater date by «n»ployeeß who had left their 'employment "or been discharged after some conflict with their employers. In the present case Birs Cross seemed to be perfectly contented) with her employer, but when friction arose she began to make trouble at once. BJer evidence had been rather coloured, and some of it was contradicted. On the other hand some of the witnesses on the other side had been unduly •nthusiaaiao. Looking at the case as a whole, thft.nrst point was the question as to whether Mxi Manttan was employed substantially in the kitchen. From the endenea of a number of witnesses on both, aides, the Court was satisfied that aha did) put a lot of her time in connexion with her work in the kitchen. What was her rating in it? Was she the first cook, or did she regard thattposition as being held by Mrs Cross? The work of chefs in kitchen* varied according to the standard of the place. In restaurants such as the Court imagined the Silver Service'Ritz to be, it was difficult to assess the nature of the duties. Certainly Mrs Cross uid heavier work and more cooking ilian Mrs Manttan. In addition to that one had to take in the general nature of the supervision exercised. It appeared that Mrs Gross had- had trouble m maintaining discipline when Mrs Manttan waa away. If the former wag in charge of the kitchen, as a chef would be, the notice would be unnecessary. The case was not satisfactory; altogether the Court was not quite satisfied that Mrs Cross should get the wages of first cook, or that Mrs Manttan was not in charge of the kitchen. If, as the result of giving judgment for the defendant, Mrs Cross lost her chance of claiming back wages which she considered were dne to her, it was her own fault -for not having called) on the. Union before she left the Silver Sefvice. This course was always open to an employee. Judgment would be for defendant.