ALLEGED PIN-PRICKS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2274, 7 October 1914, Page 8

ALLEGED PIN-PRICKS

OVER AWARD BREACHES

ACTION AGAINST A CITY HOTELKEEPER

Allegations of phi-pricking were made against the Labour' Department in a ■ case of two alleged breaches of -.the hotolworkers' award, hoard beforo Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court yesterday. The caso was one in which the; Labour Department proceeded against F. J. Oakes, licensee of the'•City Buffet-Hotel, for an alleged breach, in that on two occasions lie employed an assistant.on the day in the week set apart for the aivard holiday ■'•■■■.''■ ' , '-'■'• Mr. H. E. Moston (Inspector of 'Awards)' appeared .for the. Labour Department, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath for the defendant. A Broken Holiday. Charles Carter, employed as chef at the City Buffet Hotel- said that on Tuesday, August 25, he took his holi-i day off as usual. About 7.15 a.m. that day the carrier came up to his houso, and told him ho was required at the hotel, as one of his men had gone down in a fit.' Witness' had arrived in the hotel at about 7.45 a.m., and tho kitchen was all upsido down and the cook in bed. He went,out to get a man to take his place, but at about 11 a.m., seeing that ho could get no one, ho turned to himself, and'got the dinner ready. Mr. Oakes had. been unaware of what he had done. ' Witness finished up at 2.15 p.m. There had been three-, assistants with him up till then. ■ Witness had received 12s. 6d. for the, work. Continuing, witness said that-on. August 18 he had signed tho .-holiday book. On that day there had been a "jury tea;" and as witness had seen that thelicenseo<was llstuck," he had assisted by serving the tea at the Court'. Witness had got 12s. 6d. for the work. On both occasions he had been offered days off to make up for the time worked, but he had not taken them. ■..'■■. To Mr. M'Grath: Wituess had absolutely no' complaint to make about tho treatment ho.had received from Mr. Oakes. ':•■'■'• ;"S!mply An Impostorl" Mr. Moston severely cross-examined his witness after this, and MivM'Grath remarked that it was a most extraordinary way to treat his (the Inspector's) own witness. "But'he's simply an Impostor!" roplicd the.lnspector. • ■ ■ . John : Leel said he had been employed by Mr. Oakes as On August 11, as the third cook was illCarter had been sent for, but had assisted with the preparation of dinner up till noon. .' On the second day Carter had only come to the hotel, from ten or twelve minutes. ■ '. In his evidence, the Inspector said he had visited the. hotel about August_ 20, nnd from ,an J inspection of the holiday book, had *s'cen .'that on the two days in question.Garter had sighed off for 1 holidays, 'i Witness told Mr/ Oakes that he had beenvinform.e.d'..;that.. Carter :was; workinjW': ; pn.- ; ii.days. /.- Defendant had replied-'that .-that "was'.so, and explained. the""circumstances. :'■■"-■

"\\ Pln-Prlcking Alleged.: Mr. frM'Grath. ( held that the second case should be dismissed.'" The'Alagistrate: Yes,! I am quite preparedc.to dismiss that inpw.. . As to the first charge;.-that, waaia-mere technical breach, and I propose to impose only a nominal penalty. , Mr.'M'Grath persisted that the first information against his client should; be dismissed. "I desire to enter a protest irii the Labour Department bringing Mr. Oakes here-Wjith.their pin 7 pricking. It, is an attempt of the union to get one on.'to Mr. Oakes because he is employing a chef who does not. belong to-the'union-.".■■ '.'.'■'. ■ 'f Inspector's Reply. ; ■ Mr.' Moston: I think it is unfair for lawyers to come,here,aiid. suggest that jny Department is pin-pricking. In this particular case I made careful in-, nuirics,; and though I 1 don't think Mr. Oakes.-is a man. who would wittingly commit" a breach of the award, I was quite-justified ill bringing these.charge's against'liim. His -Worship: Well, that will o*o now. !A nominal penalty of Is. will be imposed in the : first -case, while, the'second one will bo dismissed. '