HOTEL WORKERS' AWARD

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2240, 28 August 1914, Page 7

HOTEL WORKERS' AWARD

IPLAINT OF OFFICIAL PIN-PRICKING

A CASE DISMISSED

ilio first caso to be brought under the Hotelworkers' Award was heard in til© Magistrate's Goufb yesterday, before Mr. i). G. A. Cooper, S.M., wlion the Inspector of Awards (Mr. 11. A. Hollard) sued Fanny Poole, licensee of the Empire Hotel, for a £10 penalty for alleged breach 0 f the Wellington Rotelwol Jeers Award, in failing to allow an assistant, Henry Domb, a. full day's J l ,, y dllI ''"S tllo week ending July 18. the facts of the case as stated to Hie Court were that Tuesday was .oiiib s usilal holiday. During the. week m whioh the alleged breach occurred the \\ ellington .Racing Olub's meeting took place, and consequently Domb asked as a favour of the manager that Jie bo allowed to work on Tuesday, and get off on Wednesday. This was agreed to but as the Wednesday was a particularly busy day, Domb agreed l at the request of tho waiter to give a hand at breakfast and dinner on the Wednesday. This it was maintained by the prosecution constituted a breach .of the (iward, as Domb had not received; the twenty-four hours off as prescribed by the award. The action was brought before the Court mainly for the purpose of publicity. .

A nonsuit was asked; for by Mr. Rothenberg, who appeared for the defence. Counsel entered a strong objection, as there was not a tittle of evidence, he said, to show that the licensee of the hotel, Mrs. Poole, was aware of the arrangement. Mr. Bollard remarked that liconsees should be responsible for the action of tho management. The Magistrate agreed with this, and disallowed tho nonsuit. The case proceeded, and Mr. Rothenberg strongly commented on the fact that where a warning should have been quite sufficient, a claim for £10 had been made. "Those awards and Acts of Parliament," ho said, "should not be made to harass employers ' and employees lh their mutual arrangements." In imposing a nominal penalty of Is. on defendant, the Magistrate remarked that there had only oeen a technical breach of the award, as far as the jicensee had been concerned, as she was ignorant of the arrangement. Instead of losing by the arrangement made, the omployee Domb had gained by it, while he had suffered no harm. It would have been better, thought the Magistrate, if the Labour Department had merely given a warning, seeing that Mrs. Poole had been practically an innocent party in the matter.

In the next case, the Inspector claimed a further £10 penalty from the' licensee of the Empire Hotel in respectto a similar breach in regard to another employee, Mary O'Sullivan. The facts of this case were that the employee was house mistress at the Empire, and was also her own mistress. As Miss O'Sullivan' had not taken her day off one 1 week, she took two days off tKe following week. Counsel for defendant warmly commented' that this case was the most trivial he had ever heard of—pin-prick-ing it was. and of the worst type. . Mr. Bollard retorted that the law must he obeyed, aiid if these breaches of the award were allowed to continue, the effect of the Act would he nullified. The Magistrate: I certainly don't think.- that you';, shoiild.. have brought this case before ithV "'Court, Mr. Bollard. You see that the employee had her two days' holiday • tho_ nest week. I will dismi3s.thb .information. ; On Mr.' Rothcnbcrg's application, costs wore allowed onanist the' Department to the amount of £1 Is.