ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19802, 28 February 1928, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT

ISTEGPRETATIOH OF AWARDS

The Arbitration Court has tiled its decisions in cases in which interpretations of clauses of certain awards were sought by the local inspector of awards at the recent sitting of the court in Dunedin. Jn connection with the licensed hotel employees’ award the court was asked: Can an employer require any worker in his employ to relieve during any week two or more higher paid workers on the days of their weekly holidays at the same rate of wages as is fixed for the relieving workers—e.g., can an employer require a housemaid, waitress, or relieving maid in receipt of £1 12s (id a week to relieve two members of a two-handed kitchen or three members of a three-handed kitchen on their respective weekly holidays, or must he in the former instance treat her as a general hand and pay her £2 Is, and in the latter instance treat her as “ another worker ” in the kitchen and pay her £2 7s 6d ? The answer of the court to the above was: “Yes. The restriction to one day only in each week applies in cases of emergency, and not to the regular relieving of other members of the staff on their respective days off. In order to limit the operations of the clause, ns coufended by the union, the wording of the clause would havo to be amended so ns to make it clear that only one worker receiving a higher rate of pay might bo relieved in each week for his or her day off unless the proportionate higher rate were paid for succeeding days. Such provision is made in tho dominion private hotels’ award.”

TEA ROOMS AND RESTAURANTS. In the ease of the New Zealand (except Southland) tea rooms and restaurant employees’ award Iho question was asked: Should time and a-hall" rates lor work done on any of the specified holidays ho calculated on wages ordinarily paid, or should they ho calculated on full pay, as defined in danse 4 (e) ol the award?

The court's answer was: “In the case in question the tea room was open for business, and meals wore supplied to the members of the staff who were on duty. Tho clause refers to a hoard and lodging allowance, hut the practice for manv years in allied trade awards has been to regard the actual supply of meals as equivalent to the payment of\a board allowance in cash. In view of the universal nature of this practice it must be assumed that the intention of the Conciliation Council was that the clause should receive the customary interpretation that had been given in other awards. In the opinion of the coprt the workers in question were entitled to he paid for each holiday on the basis of 50 per cent, of full pay, as defined in clause 4 (e), in addition to their weekly wages.”