A HOTELKEEPER'S GRIEVANCE.

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2761, 3 May 1916, Page 6

A HOTELKEEPER'S GRIEVANCE.

Sir,—l was perfectly well aware of the provisions of tho-Shops and Offices Amendment Act, 1913, when I wroteyou my 'letter on the subject of my recent case. Section,B of thac-Att midoubtcdly gives power to. the Arbitration Court to grant a full holiday, in each week 10 hotel employees. But Section ft says that Section S shall not apply to hotels where less than five persons are -•emple.vcd. The Act quoted by the Labour Department is exactly the Act that gives me my exemption. Now, what would be said if an Act of Parliament exempted nowspaucr proprietors, employing less than live, persons, from line so lons as they granted the- employees a half-holiday in each wook, and an'award of the Arbitration Court came along and subjected the

said proprietors to a penalty of £103 if they did not give a. full holiday in each week. Could it be said that tha Act .exempting lrom a penalty and tho award imposing a penalty aro consistent ? 1 say that an affirmative answer would bo inconsistent with common sense. Tho Labour Department evidently missed Section S) when quoting the Amendment Act to xau.~ 1 am, etc., A. A. PENEOLD. April 18. [On the above letter being submitted to the Labour Department,, a Dominion reporter was informed thai although Section £ of the Act gives power to tho I Aibitralion Court to grant a lull holiday in each week to each hotel and restaurant employee, and although Section 9 does provide as stated for a hotel employing loss than live persons, the Court has power to go further and grant a full holiday to all hotel employees irrespective of whether five or less people aro employed.'!