HOTEL WORKER'S WAGES

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 71, 18 December 1918, Page 7

HOTEL WORKER'S WAGES

AN IMPORTANT DECISION

MEANING OF "FULL PAY"

. An'important point respecting the pay-ine-nt of wages, of ■•hotel employees was raised in n ease heard by Air. 1 ,, . V. i'raner, S.JI., id tin" Magistrate's Court yesterday. The Wellington District Hotel, Club, aiul Jiestauraut • Workers' Union sought to recover u JtrlO penalty i'roni lntriek J.oseph tiriilin. licensee and -proprietor of Iho lireshnm Hotel, for im alleged breach of the Wellington hotel workers' award. It was alleged that defendant failed to grant a housemaid full pay when she was on. u week's holiday according to the terms of Clause 2 of the award. The point at issue was, What was the meaning of liio term "lml pay ? All'. I'. .1. U'lieguu, who represented tin) plaintiff union, pointed out that the action was quite an impersonal one. It was merely decided to obtain a decision on the matter.. His Worship: It is really a test case? Mr. UMleifan:' "Yes. it affects iho whole of thehotelkeepers hound by the award, and they contend, along with Air. CiriHiu, that they are not bound to pay the amount which we say they fdiomd pay. The young woman in question was in receipt iif M Cs. (id. per week..Clause !) of the award stipulated that in addition to the regular iscale of wages, Imard niitl lodging had to be 'provided, or else the. employee had to receive .JCI ii. lid. in lien, When the housemaid employed by defendant tool; her holiday she signified her intention of not returning, but counsel submitted that that did not affect the question. The union contended that under the term 'full pay' when un. employee went on a holiday he or sho should Ijo'paid not only the ordinary week's wages, but the cnsli equivalent to Ijoarit and- lodging as described by Clause !). That, -thpy held, was the meaning of "full pay." Jn tin! 'witness' box defendant stated Unit .when ho gave the girl a holiday in September last she intimated that she would not be returning to his employ, lie gave tier one week's wages, saying that she was entitled to that if she was not coming back. On several occasions he told her to fake her holiday, otherwise there was n 'danger of prosecution, because the award provided that a week's holiday must he given to employees every twelve mouths, i'or some reason or other she hud refused to take the holiday until at last he was forced to compel her to accept it.' He was sorry to lose' the girl, • as she was a good worker and was paid higher wages than the award laid down. Air. J. J. M'Urath, who appeared for ■thu defendant, stilted that the Hotelkeepers' Association contended that "full pay" 'meant "full wages"—that was, the 'monetary pay due to an employee. When an' employee's annual holiday was due no objection was raised to the individual concerned remaining iii the hotel and ■making nso of- the accommodation provided. Clause !) was an entirely different matter to the clause dealing with the payment, of u full week's wages for a week's holiday, as it related only to the provision of-board and lodging. He siu>mitted that Clause !) did not apply, us that ■ portion of the award could only be invoked- when an employer re-fused to provide board and lodging. It did not refer to holidays. ■His Worship said that according to the award if an employer olfered suitable accommodation, and the employee decided to live elsewhere, the latter was not entitled: to demand lodgings allowance. The option- to pay the monetary allowance in such a csso'was the employer's; and.not the employee's. In the present case the housemaid had; by her own action, teiv urinated her employment. She refused to slay on and-asked for money in lieu of board and lodging, which she could have received had she remained at the hotel. She-was entitled to , the holiday on the' -same condition as if she had been remaining in Air. Griffin's employ, and had. earned her right to a week's free board and lodging. When a girl left her employment after having earned her holiday, she was entitled to a week's free board and lodging if sho stayed on at tno hotel,--but-it was at the option of the employer whether she should get the sum of £\ t>. Gd. in lieu of board and lodging, hi this'case the girl had exercised an option which the award did not give her, and fiho had forfeited her right to the money. .Judgment.was.given for the defendant, with.JJL Is. costs. '.' . ' ' ' .....