BREACH OF AWARD

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 73, 28 March 1933, Page 9

BREACH OF AWARD

HOTELKEEPERS PROSECUTED

HALF-HOLIDAY AT WRONG

TIME

Because they gave certain of their employees morning instead of afternoon half-holidays, three "Wellington hotelkeepers were prosecuted by the /Labour Department in tho Arbitration Court today. Tho defendants were Thomas. Brennan, licensee of the Te Arp Hotel, Lou Smith, licensee of the Terminus Hotel, and Thomas Coltman, licensee of the Grand Hotel.

Associated with Mr. Justice Frazer on the Bench were Mr. W. Cecil Prime (employers' assessor) and Mr. A. li. Montoith (employees' assessor). Mr. J. Scott appeared for Messrs. Brennan and Smith, and Mr. W. Perry for Mr. Coltman. Mr- J- Georgeson represented the Labour Department.

In each case it was stated that the employees, all of whom were barmen or barmaids, had taken the morning instead of the afternoon half-holiday at their own request. Counsel stated that there was no question of the employees having to work longer hours, and it was submitted that the cases were so trivial that they should be dismissed.

Mr. Georgeson said that the Department had reeoived numerous complaints from other .workers, and also from the union. It was possible .that if employers were allowed' to break the award in this particular way it would lead to collusion between the employer and tho employee, and also react unfairly on other workers in the same establishment. ' • [ "COURT'S DECISION.. "Wo look upon these cases more- or less- in the nature of test cases," remarked Mr. Justice Frazer in giving judgment. Referring to the jurisdiction of the Disputes' Committee in, tha matter, his Honour said it was perfectly obvious'from the wording of the Act that the committee could not deal with anything specifically dealt with in the award; it could only deal with matters incidental to the award. Tho wording of the clause under which action had been taken was not in the usual mandatory form, but tho particular wording that a worker "shall be entitled ;to a half-holiday . . ." . had been in the statute from as far back as 1913, and there had never been any question as to its meaning. The'. Act intended the clause to be mandatory, and had always been interpreted in that way. . ... The award provided for no alternative to a. half-holiday in the afternoon. The half-holiday must. bo given, and could not*, be avoided by means of payment or anything elso.

In tho case of Mr. Brennan only ono breach had been, committed, and that at tho barmen's 'particular Tequest. The Court proposed to treat the breach as trivial and impose no penalty. ;

In .the case of the two other defendants the award had been broken over a period, and although the breach was committed at the request of tho employees, his Honour said that did not affect !the case, for the award had universal 'application, and had to bo observed by employer and employee alike. The breaches could not be treated as trivial, although they were to some extent excusable. A penalty of £2 in each case was imposed.