ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARDS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 65, 11 December 1918, Page 3

ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARDS

SEVERAL ESIPLOYERS FINED. The Inspector of Awards (sfr. R. T. Bailey) proceeded against several employers in the slagistrate's Court yesterday morning, before Mr. AV. G. Riddell, S.M., to recover penalties in respect of alleged breaches of awards. Messrs. D. Robertson and Co., Ltd., for whoni slr. E. M. Beechey appeared, were charged with committing a breach of the Wellington engineers' award in failing to give notice of employing an apprentice. Mr. Beechey admitted the facts, and explained that the bre'aclrhad been due to tho fault of an employee of the company. 'A fine of 10s. was imposed. Mies Rend, of the Stafford Tea Rooms, Willis! Street, for -whom Jfr. A. Blair appeared, was charged with committing a breach of the hotel and restaurant workers' award in failing to pay award rates to several kitchen hands. slr. Blair contended that the workers were not employed as kitchen hands, but were in the capacity of .miclday waitresses, for which provision was made in the award. They had nothing to do with the w.crk in the kitchen; they took no part in the culinary operations, but were engaged to carve and serve. He contended that they were purely "midday waitresses.". . Mr. Riddell said he did not think the workers concerned came under the heading of "midday waitresses," nevertheless, though they were working in the kitchen, they did not come under the designation of,kitchen hands. They did not appear to have been provided for in the award, and he could not hold that tho defendant had committed a breach of the award. At. this stage tho Inspector asked the Magistrate to state a case for the Arbitration Court, which the Slagistrate agreed to do, and the case was accordingly adjourned sine die. The licensee of the Post Office Hotel (51. Muir), for whom Mr. If. siyers appeared, was proceeded against on a chavse of committing a breach of the Wellington hotel workers' award, Clause 7, in dismissing Miss Cocking, a night porter, without notice or wages in lieu of notice. The Inspector of Awards (51r. It. T. Bailey) called Miss Cocking, who gave evidence as to working,three or four nights, and had been late in beginning work on one,evening. When she called for her wages she was told she was not entitled to any. There were two days' wages due to her. llr. Myers stated that the facts as given by Miss Cocking wte not correct. He pointed out that owing to war conditions women had to be employed in the place of men, and this woman was engaged as a. night porter. The first night she came on-duty at 9:30, the correct time, and did her work; on the second night sho came between 10.15 and 10.20,' and Mrs. Muir did not know whether she was coming or not. On tho 'third night she turned , up at 10.30, by which time the work in the bar had been finished. Mrs. Muir told her it was no use coming when the work was' completed. The woman asked about her money, and s[rs. Muir tokl her she did not know that there was any money coming to her. The woman did not turn up the foltowing night, but had she done so she would have been allowed to go on with the wcJrk. No one had been engaged to take her place then. Mrs. sluir gave evidence in support of Mr. Myers s statement. The Magistrate, after reviewing the evidence at some length, held that . a breach had been committed, and a penalty of ill.