WHOSE LIABILITY?

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 14, 11 October 1918, Page 7

WHOSE LIABILITY?

FOR SERVANTS'HOLIDAYS UNUSUAL 'INDUSTRIAL CASE In tho Arbitration Court yesterday the Inspector of Awards (in this caso Mr. K. T. Bailey) proceeded on a charge of broach of the_ Wellington Jiotel workers' award against Charles Schauer, licensee of the Grand! Hotel, •Wellington. Tho charge set out that the defendant had in his employ G. Nixon, T. Dalton, and Ethel Chapman, who had completed' twelve months' service on June 20, 1918, and he failed to allow, them a week's holiday on full pay within three months of tie expiry of the twelvo months. The Court consisted, of Mr. Justice Stringer (president), Mr. W. Scott (employers' representative), and Mr. J. !A. M'Cullough (employees' representative. Mr. It. T. Bailey represented the Department of Labour, arid Mr. T. Young appeared as counsel for the defendant. His Honour: I. suppose there is some ■ question of law involved. I don't see why this should he brought before the Court. ■•Mr. Young: Almost entirely. It is a question of construction of the award. Mr. Bailoy said that tho defendant had taken over the hotel on May 23, 1918. - Tlie three employees had at that date worked for within a few weeks of twelvo months'since the coming into force of tha award, so that a few weeks after Schauer took over the hotel their year was up. His Honour: You suggest that the new licensee takes over the liability "with regard to servants. Mr. Bailoy said there had been no break in the continuity of employment. His Honour: Suppose, tho .previous proprietor owed tlie chef £50, would >Schauer have been liable for that? Mr. Baiiey: I can't say that, but His Honour: They had served twelve months in the hotel, and your say the defendant took over the balance of tho liability as regards holidays. Mr. Bailey: Yes, as Schaeur acceptied the transfer he accepted all the responsibility. Schauer knew .the award and knew his responsibilities, and if ho was prepared to accept the transfer and not safeguard himself With regard to this legacy Page .was leaving •him, these employees aro entitled to get from him the week's holiday on full pay. His Honour: You say that the service is attached to the hotel, and not to tho man. Mr. Bailey: I say that the' transfer Was such that if Schauer did not want to give this holiday lie should have had an adjustment. .Mr. Young said that Schauer sympathised with the employees, but ho could not be expected to take over all the faults of his predecessor regarding the servants. That would he a liability which had never 'been cast on an employer in' tho past. Schauer became hound by tho award only from the date of his talcing over on May 23. His Honour: And tho offenco was committed before that time. _ Mr. Young said 'that if the previous licenseo broke the award it was'not Schauor.'s affair. His Honour: Mr. Bailoy would have to go to this'extent, that if these employees had arrears of wages owing by tho predecessor they could recover them from Schauer. Mr. Bailoy:- Much has. been made of the fact that the nredeeossor should have.given these holidays. The predecessor had handed over the hotel to Schauer before the holiday became duo. His Honour: Suppose Schauer took over a,week bolero the holiday became due, you say that lie is liable? Mr. Bailey: Yes. His Honour said that it was quits idea r .that.there. hnrl not ■been,!'a .breach of the award and dismissed the. charge.