"MIDDAY WAITRESSES."

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1687, 1 March 1913, Page 13

"MIDDAY WAITRESSES."

ARB THEY SUBJECT TO OVERTIME ?

A busy hfo is that of a restaurant waitress, as people in the habit of city dining v,*ell know. The hotel anil restaurant employees' award makes special provision for the employment of what are known as "midday waitresses" to relieve the rushes which usually occur between the hoursof 11.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. The interesting point as to whether a "midday waitress" can bo employed overtime was decided in a reserved judgment declared by Mr. D.'C. Cutlen, S.M., on Thursday, savs tho Auckland "Star." ' The case was Inspector of Awards v. F. W. and A. I'rior, occupiers of the Strand Cafe, and tho claim aroso out of an alleged failure'on tho part of the defendants to pay the : wages required by the award to a waitress whom they employed ou six days between tho hours of 11.30 a.m. and 2 p.m., which waitress was on three of • the days employed between the .hours of 5 and 7 p.m., and on one dnp between the hours nf 5 and 7.30 p.m. The defendants claimed that they employed her. as a "midday waitress," paying her tho award rates for employment between tho liours of 11.30 a.m. and 2 p.m.; and paying overtime rates for the hours W tween .5 p.m., also between 7 and 7.30 p.m. Plaintiff claimed that there was no provision for the payment of overtime to a "midday.waitress," and that employment at other than tho stipulated timo worth! not constitute employment as a •"middaywaitress." "I think this contention is sound," said his Worship. "If a waitress workins between tho hours of 11.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. is defined by tho award as a "midday waitress," it seems to me to bu nnduo stretching of language to say tliat a waitress working between tho hours of 5 and 7.30 p.m. is working as a 'midday waitress,' and to suggest that-in. working those hours sho was working overtime from her middav waiting seems absurd. The defendant, I think, acted in good faith. Judgment was given for plaintiff for 10s. and costs.