ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20094, 25 November 1930, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

TWO APPEALS HEARD. At the sitting of the Arbitration Court yesterday, Mr Justice Frazer presided and with him on the Bench were Mr W. Cecil Prime, employers' representative, and Mr A. L. Monteith, employees' representative. Mrs T. Hunter, of 111 Manchester street, made application for exemption from the North Canterbury Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Award. Mr D. I. Macdonald appeared to support Mrs Hunter's petition, and Mr P. J. Niall appeared for the Union of the employees. Mr Macdonald explained that Mrs Hunter had a which combined the selling of confectionery and hot and cold drinks. She employed a young girl as an assistant, and he maintained that a very small percentage of her time was taken up with serving drinks, and therefore it was not fair that Mrs Hunter should have to pay the award wages for that particular type of duties. Mr Niall opposed the application, maintaining that if Mrs Hunter's claim was allowed the decision would be of such importance that it would affect the wages of scores of girls employed in similar shops throughout the Dominion. The shop was in point of fact a "marble bar" and therefore came under the award. Mr Justice Frazer pointed out that the term "marble bar" was a very confusing one, and it had been defined that if a shop sold drinks in bottles it was not covered under the term, but that a "marble bar" was a shop which had a fountain and equipment for serving drinks of various flavours in that manner. "I cannot see the difference so marked between an employee pressing a button to serve a drink, and reading a label and pulling off the cap," added his Honour.. The Court reserved its decision. Female Apprentices. The Hairdressers' Apprenticeship Committee made application for an amendment to be made to the North Canterbury Hairdressers' Assistants' Award so as to include females in an apprenticeship order. Mr J. S. Barnett presented the case on behalf of the committee, and Mr D. I. Macdonald appeared for the employers. The application was refused on the ground that under the Act the committee was not a competent body to present such a request, no matter what good intentions might have prompted l it.