RESTAURANT WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 20, 18 October 1918, Page 7

RESTAURANT WORKERS

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWABD

WHAT IS A GENERAL HAND?

A caso of importance to restaurantkeepers was heard by Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, when tho Inspector cf Awards, Mr. 11. T. Bailey, proceeded against Neil B. Austin, proprietor U' the "Don" restaurant, to recover a penalty for an ailcged breach of tins private hotel and restaurant workers' award. The case for the Labour Department was that during the six months ended July 14 defendant employed a general hand named Miss D. iVic'hol at tho rato of 275. 6d. a week, instead of 325. 6d. Defendant was also claimed to have committed a further breach on the ground that during the six months ended August.ll), he failed to provide lodgings for bis restaurant employees, or in the alternative, to pay them 7s. 6d. per week in addition to their ordinary wages.

Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for-tho defendant.

Mr. Bailey said that for sonic time Miss Nichol had been engaged as a general hand, and tho question the Court would bo asked to decide was: Does the ierui "general .hand" cover the particular caso.in point? Immediately ii worker was engaged in :i general capacity then she immediately Clime under the provisions of the award relating to goneral hands. Miss i\ichql had been first employed as a waitress, and afterwards she was assigned general duties. In. respect to the second caso, Mr. Bailey said tho award stipulated that iii places when; lodging was provided for guests lodging should also bo provided for employees, or in the alternative they should receive a payment of 7s. 6'd. per week, in addition' to their wage. The question in this caso; Who is the occupier? Tho inspector claimed that defendant Austin was the occupier. Uo kept a place in Lambtou Quay whero board was provided, and another place in Boulcott Street where lodging was provided. In that case defendant should provide lodging for his employees. It might bo contended that Mrs. Austin was really tho proprietress of the lodging establishment, but Mr. Bailey maintained that that basis of argument could not bo successfully upheld. Tho lodgers paid their board to Mr. Austin at his shop in Lambton Quay, where they hud their meals, therefore defendant - w »s responsible For tho conduct of the two establishments,' and' for the payment of the lodging allowance tp the employees. Mr. Bailey proceeclet to call evidenco in support of his address.

For tlie defence, Mr. O'Lcary said the restaurant was. owned by Mr. Austin, and the lodginghouse by Mrs. Austin, therefore, defendant was not bound

';. provide lodging for his employees, ilr. Austin did not provide lodging for guests. Though |tho" husband and wife at times acted as agent ono for the other, their establishments were entirely separate, and each was responsible 'for his or her own liabilities. With references to the other information against defendant, Mr, O'Leary submitted that, 'the term "general hand" applied only to males. It was merely a substitute for the old term

"roustabout," a position generally filled by ,a male. The employee, in respect 'of whom tho information was laid should bo classified according to tho employment at which she was substantially employed during tho week, viz., a waitress. The girl could havu been worked fifty-two hours per week, hut as a matter of fact she was only employed for forty-two hours.

Defendant stated that ho was tho proprietor. of the shop in Lambton Quay, and Jfrs. Austin owned tho freehold of the property in Boulcott. Street. The building in which tho shop was situated was owned'by Gilmer and MaKuiro.' From them' he had had a leaso which had expired, and since no had occupied the shop on a montli-to-montli. tenancy. No lodgers staye;l lit tho Lambton Quay premises, but if there was a vacancy at the lodgingiiQiise in Boulcott Street he would recommend peoplfc to* go .there. Miss Nichol had been employed as a waitress. Decision was reserved.