ECHO OF EPIDEMIC

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 286, 29 August 1919, Page 9

ECHO OF EPIDEMIC

EMPLOYEES' CLAIM FAILS IN MARBLE BAR CASE Claims for wages lost during tho epiloniic in November lost were heard by Air. W. G. liiddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The defendant m the- action was tho Marble Bui- Company, who a few days ago endeavoured to have the Hon. G. W. Bus.;ell, late Minister of Public Health, joined as a codefendaut, on the ground that ho was directly responsible for the closing of tho premises during the epidemic, but this u-ns disallowed, for the reason that Ihirdpatty procedure was not permissible under tho Magistrate's Court Act. .The plaintiffs in the cases were employees of the company, viz., Catherine Stewart' (£<S 17s: Cd.), Lyra Henderson (.£3 18s. 7d.), Slyra Whiteninn (il 19s. 3d.)/Li la Young (175.), Bridget Crdnwell (£3 10s.),"and Margaret Cosgrovo (,£1 lCs). ' . The caeo of Bridget Croawetl was coiisidered first, and after consideration of the evidence His Worship gave judgment . for the defendant company. Tho other cases were then struck out. , Edward Kennedy, assistant-secretary of i the Wellington Hotel and ltestaurant' Workers' Union, produced a copy of the original award, the defendant company being.a party to the award. When the epidemic started a regulation was passed limiting the hours at. which restaurants oould bo open. The hours' at which they could ho open were 12 to 2 and 5 ■fo 7. The normal hours were from !) li.ra. till 11 p.m.. and the staff was divided into two shifts. The notice required for the dismissal of lands was 48 hours oii either side. ' Bridget Croawell eaid that she was employed by the defendant during November at ft weekly wage of .£1.175. (id. On ..November 24 she wae put off on account of tho slack time, and did not receive the forty-eight hours' notice. ' She fesnmed work on December 10. The manageress told witness to go, remarking that she had orders from tie manager to.reduce the staff. Her .pay day was Saturday, and November 24 was a Saturday) but she only received Jier ordinary pay. She did .not receive any pay in lieu of notice. . .■■■•".

To Mr. Blair: She was not dismissed, but put off till business Tesumed. She did not leave on .her own account, nnd pho did not leave'the manageress,. Mrs. Cameron, to run the business on her .own. She admitted that'ehe wae an assistant manageress. :

Mr. Blair: I suggest that you stayed nway. to Buit yourself—you simply took a., holiday. '~... .' ;•

"Witness: No, I did not. .- ' , To the Magistrate: Miss Cameron told witness to go off for a fortnight. . Continuing, witness stated that'her. reason for returning on December. 10'.was ■ that'elio was off for i fortnight. In oecordancii with the.award..every employee .had two days' pay retained in case an employee left .without notice. To Mr. Scott: The Kialto .Company adTortised for. their employees to.return, ■and the sumo, applied to Gamble, and Creed's. The practice' was not adopted ■ by. the Marble Bar Company. Mr. Blair, on behalf of the. defence,, opened his remarks, by. saying that the proceedings in many of the cases to bo heard wero taken without the authority of the■ persons.named. Apart from this, .however, he submitted that his client had ,no. Case to answer. On her own showing. Mss Croawell. was put off. According to the- award she would be .en'itled to two days' pay, and therefore her claim ninst be', necessarily limited to .two days' pay. : Thero had never been any appli- ' cations for' pay. . ' Mr. Scott snid that Mr. E..T. Bailey, Inspector of Awards, had applied to the defendant for the payment of the wages. ..Mr. Blair accepted that, and said that it was a matter entirely between the manager, Bernard Dohertr, and the plaintiff Miss.Croawell. * ■

The manager then' gave evidence,, and mid that the plaintiff was. employed as a of the defendant's Cuba Street, shop.. Miss Croawell approached witness, niitl .said that she was going to TniJcß a. fortnight's holiday.. As the. manflKcress.- Mrs.r Cameron; '• was. ill,-.witness Raid, she could_ riot!'.have ■ the..holiday." She then took it on her own authority. Some time in Dccomber witness received a letter from the Labour Department, requesting him to pay all the wages of employees during the epidemic. . .To Mr. Scott: Miss Crcnwoll was not correct when she -said that she did not npply for leave. Witness was positive that Miss Croawell asked for leave. Witness did not consider that he was bound to pay anything which he considered he Was not. entitled to pay. .He did not recognise Mr. Bailey, even ' th'ousjh, lie was an official of the Labour Department. Tlif fact remained that the plaintiff walked out of the shop, and remained flway for a fortnight. No employees were put off at tho time Mife .'Croawell loft.

.Vera Slui-iel'Cameron, who was man-n-reress of the Culn Str?et branch of thn Marble Bar in November Inst, stated that Miss Croawell had asked for leave, but was refused As far. na the Cnlm Street branch wits..concerned, no one was ipiit off. during the epidemic. His Worshin said that the onus was on the plaintiff to show that her engagement had been terminated by her employer, and on the pvidoncp. hn could not find that the plaintiff had discharged that onus. Judgment would be for the defendant with £1 Is. costs. • . . '. , The remaining cases were struck out.