UNDERPAID WORKERS

Gisborne Times, Volume LXV, Issue 10315, 26 January 1927, Page 6

UNDERPAID WORKERS

DINING ROOM WAITRESSES. QUESTION OF ACCOMMODATION COUNSEL ANdTnSPECTOR AT VARIANCE. Underpayment of employees of the imperial Dining Rooms was alleged acminst the proprietor, Clifford Ernest Church, in a prosecution by the J nspector of Awards, lieard by Mi. M. C. Levvey, S.M., m the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The charge? against Church were that he employed Florence Bugden and Ruby Bloxham as waitresses, paying them only 35s weekly instead oQ 42s 6d, and algo employing Molly Watt as a kitchenmaid,, paying her only 46s a week instead of 53s Cd as required by the award. INSPECTOR’S CASE. Outlining the alleged breaches of the Luncheon and Ten Rooms Award, > nspector Jackson explained that Church, who had started the oustness during the currency of the award, was therefore bound by its provisions. He had employed two waitresses and a kitchenmaid, paying them 35s and 46s weekly respectively Now at the rear of the Imperial Dining Rooms were a number of bedrooms for guests, and, under the award, re.stauranteurs providing accommodation for guests must also provide sleeping rooms for employees or pay them 7s 6d more weekly. It would' be shown that these guests' rooms were part of the business and that the kitchenmaid cleared them out every day. In addition the reslauranteur had to provide the emplovee with two meals daily, so that the actual living wages of an employee was based on actual cash wages' received plus accommodation and two meals. The latter Church had not provided, but latterly lie had contended that his wife conducted the accommodation rooms separately and lie ran the dining room, but it would he shown that the girls vho served the dining rooms served the guests who stayed there, and who received a concession for dining in i he dining rooms. KITCHEN AIAID'S STORY.

Evidence given by Florence M. Watt stated that, prior to July last year, she had been employed as third cook in the Imperial Dining Rooms, then working for Mr. Jury. When Churc-h took over he offered her the loh as second cook. Jury suggesting iffat she could teach Church the business, as he did not know much about it. She accepted and received £2 6s, Jicr wages being increased by Is. She started at 8.30 and continued until ii a.m., whan Mrs. Church, who was Prst cook, relieved her. She then cleared the bedrooms at the hack and Hie dining room. Al! the guests living in these rooms had to have their meals in the dining room, fm' which limy received a concession of 6d per meal. There were n number of permanent boarders there. When she accepted the position of second cook Die was led to believe she would ultimately be chef but the job never materialised. Slie declared that the waitresses helped in washing up and getting orders ready during a rush.

■Church, who had asserted he was second cook, she said, mostly walked about with his hands in lus pockets nr.d sympathised. (Laughter.) He was net engaged in the kitchen much ; he was supposed to be a land agent and was out most of the time, lie certainly messed about the kitchen hut. did not do much. (Laughter.) When. Mrs. Watt attempted to produce references as to ability m cooking, Mr. Barnard strenuously protested and was allowed his point.

WAITRESS’ VERSION. Florence E. Bugden stated she was engaged as a waitress in the dining rooms from August to October at 35s per week. The Inspector had visited the premises on September 20 and had informed them that they were entitled to 7s 6d per week more if accommodation was not provided. Sue then asked Mrs. Church about the extra money, and she stated she was not going to give it to them. INSPECTOR AND COUNSEL. •What'did Mrs. Ch’f.rcn say ? ■e ked Mr. Jackson. “It is really atrocious the way the inspector is ‘conducting this case,” protested Air. Barnard hotly. “Here a man who ‘'its on tne Bench and j ; , a J.P. questioning a witness in ilii.s way.’’ The Magistrate : “The question is a leading one.” Ur. Burnard (warmly): “It shows the feeling there must be behind tne care.” „ dr. Jackson: “I'm -sorry if you Lake it that way. There is no malice on my part.” “It is very difficult to believe that in view of the conduct of this case,” retorted Mr. Burnard, hotly. The Magistrate (resignedly): “All right, proceed, Air. Jacks on.” Continuing, witness stated tout during rush hours she save assistance in the kitchen.

ROW WITH LANDLADY Air Burnard: You were offered by Mrs Church a room to share with f.laby Bloxham within a, ovonr 1 ting engaged?—No. “ Do you say Airs Church did not offer vou and Ruby Bloxham a, room? —No; she offered a room among three of us and was going to charge JO-- a week. You and Ruby Bloxham had had a, row with vour landlady at that time? . jTG'S, Did you not then tell Mrs Church you would take the room? —Yes, but meantime the row was patched up.

CASE FOII DEFENCE For the defence it was pointed out that in view o. tne gun ougaen's admission the charges should be dismissed as trivial, there were three charges, he said, one of which, that in respect of. Ruby Bloxham, having been . apparently dropped. In. regard to the case of Mrs Watt, it would be shown that she was engaged purely as a kitchenmaid and that as she worked in connection with the guests rooms and did not sleep on the premises tne extra i s fckl nad been paid... Lt would be absurd he declared, to expect that the waitresses whot did nothing in connection with the accommodation rooms should be provided with accommodation. Surely he said, it was clear that this had been a mischievous effort on the part of an official in entering premises seeking to create dissatisfacion where none existed before. Une could not imagine any more mischievous interference than was evident in this case. The reason that Mrs Watt was not paid the wages demanded, was that she was engaged purely as a kitchenmaid and was paid wages accordingly, she being not competent to do the cooking. Regarding the payment of the waitresses, he pointed out there were two defences, first that the accommodation rooms were conducted separately by Mrs Church and secondly that she had offered the girls accommodation bub this was refused.. MRS CHURCH ENT BOX Mrs. Church gave evidence to the effect that when the waitresses mentioned the row with their landlady she offered them a room and made preparations for them to enter into occupation .but the vow' was amicably settled and the girls then announced -that they did not-want the room. :&.he bad otfe-d them the "now «--bort.l'> rafter taking over the business which was conducted separately, she punning the accommodation rooms and her husband the dining rooms oh a muttal agreement basis, for which'

there were no documents: As to Mu s Watts’ status she declared that the former was engaged solely as a_ kitchen maid, and did not do any of the cooking which was performed by herself and Mr Church. Mrs Watt said she was incompetent to do the cooking. She denied that she had ottered the room among three employees at lps, saying tne witness Bugden had told a. lie in this respect.

Corroborative evidence was given by Clifford Church. Florence Bloxham, the other waitress engaged in the dining rooms declared that about six weeks after the Churches took the dining rooms over Airs Church offered her and the girt Bugden a room but they decided not to take it, but there was no mention of any charge for it. The Magistrate stated that the evidence showed clearly that Mrg Watt Was receiving all she was mtuled to and the case would be dis missed. On the claims in respect ot fiie waitresses, however, the evidence was conflicting hut one point emerged clearly that Mrs Church had ottered the girls a room, probably to assist them in theii predicament with their landlady Lut unfortunately by doing so she was merely complying with the terms of the award and further that the offer was not made until six weeks after the Churches took possession, of the business, tie would not treat the cases as trivial but •would impose a fine, of 10s and costs for both cases and would allow 7s 6d per week for five weeks to each waitress. .