RESTAURANT DIFFICULTIES

Evening Star, Issue 22465, 9 October 1936, Page 7

RESTAURANT DIFFICULTIES

EMPLOYMENT OF WAITRESSES HOUR LIMITED TO 10.30 P.M. COUNSEL'S SUBMISSIONS IN PROSECUTION “ It would be madness to carry on the after-theatre supper trade if, within a few minutes of their arrival, patrons were told that they could not be served. If the Act prohibiting the employment of female assistants after 10.30 p.m. is enforced, restaurant proprietors will be forced to close their premises for the whole of the evening trade,” stated Mr J. S. Sinclair, in the Police Court today, when Philip Barling pleaded guilty to a charge of employing women workers after the hour specified in the Shops and Offices Act. The contention was made that restaurant proprietors had been granted dispensation from that particular provision of the Act since 1917, and that under the existing conditions of the labour market it was impossible to obtain male assistants. The magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) pointed out that the court was concerned only with the question of a breach of the Act, and that contentions made on behalf of defendant should be made to the Legislature.

Mr W. M. Cadwallader (Inspector of Awards) said the charge was laid under section 40 of,the Shops and Offices Act, which stated that no female assistant w’as to be employed in or about a restaurant after 10.30 p.m. on any day. It was admitted that about 13 females have been consistently employed by defendant until 10.45 p.m. or even till 11.55 p.m. As no defence could be offered, said Mr Sinclair, defendant had decided to plead guilty. The section had been in Shops and Offices Act for a great many years—since 1917. When the Act was passed representations were made by Mr Barling and other restaurant proprietors on the difficulties if such a section were enforced. Both at that time and later the Minister and the department had realised the reasonableness of those representations, and, consequently, for all that period since 1917 and until a few weeks ago, restaurant proprietors had actually received dispensation from the operation of the section. He was confident that, when he had heard the facts, His Worship would come to the conclusion that this was not a case which called for the imposition of any fine. Conditions in such, a trade changed from time to time, and both the Ministers of the day and the Department of Labour had realised that.

‘‘ Should not these arguments he addressed to the Legislature, and not to the court?” asked the. Magistrate. “ The court is concerned with only the question of a breach.”

Mr Sinclair: I appreciate that, but I feel that there should be certain facts placed before you before you decide what penalty, if any, should be imposed. I feel that the facts are rather important, and should be brought before your Worship’s knowledge. The limitation of hours was all right in the days of the silent pictures. This is a trade which Mr Barling has built up by many years of studious work. In the silent picture days the programmes were shorter, and after-theatre supper patrons reached the restaurant somewhere about 10 o’clock, but it is now about 10.20 when they arrive. It is impossible to serve the customers by 10.30. That fact was put before the department, and, as a result of the representations, dispensation was given to the proprietors. _lt is impossible to the service of patrons within a few minutes, and the girls remain on for an extra 10 minutes usually. They are paid overtime, and they willingly assist the employer in this work. The alternative, as your Worship will see, is to employ a staff of men for a short period of 10 minutes. In other words, to comply with the behest of the department, Mr Barling would have to employ from 10.30 till 10.40.

“ Not at the behest of the department, but to conform with the requirements of the law,” corrected Mr Bundle. LAW NOT ENFORCED. “ Very well,” replied Mr Sinclair. “ But the department has not enforced the law until a few weeks ago. The extra time has been worked to the knowledge of the Minister and the department. The Act was not enforced because it was so absurdly unreasonable to do so.”

The Magistrate: After all, Mr Sinclair, these matters are matters for the Legislature. The legislation says that no woman shall be employed after a certain hour. Only one thing can happen. The restaurant must close.

MINISTER APPRECIATES DIFFICULTIES.

Mr Sinclair said his point was that although the employment hour had been stated since 1917 the Act had not been enforced, following the representations made by the restaurant proprietors. The situation was difficult, as the Minister has admitted in a letter. The after-theatre supper business had really become a necessity after 10.30. Replying to a letter by Mr Barling, sent on August 12, with reference to the staffing difficulties, the Minister of Labour wrote on September 11 that he had taken the opportunity of looking into the problem of obtaining suitable workers for night work. Apparently there was a demand by the public for late suppers and the obtaining of a staff was rendered difficult by the Act limiting the employment of female assistants. It was not possible to do anything during the present session to amend the law, but he proposed to review the Shops and Offices Act, and he then would give further consideration to the matter. “ There is_ the Minister’s own expressed opinion on the subject,” said Mr Sinclair. “ But here is the difficulty. Mr Barling has advertised oyer and over again and has made requests to the union secretary almost every other day for male assistants. He has received only one application for employment—a most unsatisfactory one by a man whose vocation was that of lorry driver. The market is completely barren of male assistants for restaurants. Mr Barling cannot obtain any male assistants, and if the Act is enforced, or if he is punished for this breach, he will have to close down the whole of his evening trade—not merely from 10.30—because it would be ridiculous to allow his rooms to be filled up by people within a few minutes of closing time and tell them that they would have to go away as he could_ not serve them. To carry on trade in such a way would be madness. I fed _ very strongly on his behalf, because this restriction, the introduction of the 40hour week and the half-holiday from 1 p.m., are making it very difficult for him to carry on in business. I feel that the Minister does not (fuite appreciate the difficulties.” The magistrate repeated that the court was concerned only with the question of a breach and the question

of a penalty. But to say that proceedings should not havo been taken was beside the point. _ . Mr Sinclair again stressed the point that dispensation had been granted for nearly 20 years, and called attention to the Minister’s letter. “ Was that letter written before proceedings were taken?” asked the Magistrate. Mr Sinclair replied that proceedings were taken on September 10, obviously without the consent of the Minister. It looked like a local prosecution. ACT TO BE ENFORCED. Mr Cadwallader said he had received instructions from headquarters in Wellington to take action and to see that the Act in its present form was enforced. While he agreed largely with the representations made by Mr Sinclair on the question of the difficulty of obtaining workers, he had to carry out his instructions. He had no knowledge of any dispensation given by the department or the Government _to restaurant proprietors. Prosecutions had been made in every city in New Zealand. . “ But not in Dunedin,” replied Mr Sinclair. .

The Magistrate : Is there any suggestion by the department that dispensation is given now and will be given in the future?

Mr Cadwallader: None whatever. Mr Sinclair disagreed with any contention that the department had not overlooked the breaches. The premises, had been opened until 11 p.m. for the last 19 years. The Magistrate: Do you say that dispensation has been granted? Mr Sinclair: Yes. Mr Barling made definite representations to the department and dispensation was given. The Magistrate: By whom? Mr Sinclair; The representation was made to the Minister. Mr Barling has continuously kept his premises open and employed female assistants after 10.30 p.m., and has never been prosecuted. That has been done within the knowledge of the department, and Labour secretaries visit the premises every week. It would be iniquitous to now enforce the section against the struggling restaurant proprietors. The Magistrate: That is not a matter for the court, which can only say, “ Here is the Act.” Conditions had changed, replied Mr Sinclair. The Act bad contemplated at least that male assistants would be available. The Labour Department would agree that male assistants were unobtainable. The result of a conviction would be that, in these hard times, restaurants would have to close down the whole evening, and the (public would not be able to have suppers. In the circumstances, he submitted that this was not a case for other than a nominal penalty. NO AMENDMENT PROPOSED. The Magistrate: What is the intention of the department regarding the future? “ I understand from various sources that representations have been made to the Government with regard to the proposed alterations of the Act, and have received the consideration of the Government, but it is not intended to make any alteration,” said Mr Cadwallader. • Mr Sinclair asked the magistrate to read the Minister’s letter. Mr Cadwallader: It is_ a, fact that the Shops and Offices Act in its particular entirety will be overhauled during the next session, but not in this particular respect. “ Is it agreed by the department that this condition of affairs has continued since the Act was passed? ” asked the Magistrate. ■ Mr Cadwallader replied that he bad no knowledge of any previous prosecutions against the defendant, but he knew that convictions had been secured in nearly every other town over a long period of years, The Magistrate: But you have heard the statement of counsel that this position has obtained here for many years? Mr Cadwallader: I do not dispute that. ~ In imposing a penalty, said Mr Bundle, he had to take into consideration the admitted fact that the condition of affairs had existed for a number of years. Many of the arguments advanced were questions entirely tor the Legislature. Defendant was fined 40s and costs.