LABOUR WORLD

Grey River Argus, 1 March 1927, Page 7

LABOUR WORLD

HOTEL EMPLOYEES AWARD. BREACHES BY EMPLOYER. At the sitting of the Magistrate’s Court held at Denniston on Thursday, 24th inst, the Inspector of Awards (Mr A. D. Snedden) proceeded against Mr A. B. Croudie, proprietor of the Alpine Hotel, at Burnetts Face, for four breaches of the N.Z. Licensed Hotel Employees Award. The offences were first, that the licensee had failed to pay award rates to an employee classified as a housemaid-waitress and spending approximately one-third of her time in the kitchen; secondly, that the employee concerned had been employed on Xmas and Boxing Days without being paid time and a-half rates, for each clay; thirdly, that he failed to keep a time and wages book as required by the award; and fourthly, a similar offence in respect of a holiday book. Mr Snedden informed the Court that he had discussed the various matters fully with the defendant and an agreement reached that the employee was entitled to an additional 8/6 per week which deficiency was to be made up over the full period of the young lady’s employment Under these circumstances he therefore agreed that the seriousness of the breach had been minimised. In respect of the failure to pay overtime rates for work done on Dec. 25th and Dec. 26th the Inspector stated that once again the defendant had met his liabilities whilst in the case of the wages and holiday books he understood that the necessary records were now being kept. In view of the foregoing circumstances I anything in the nature of a penalty was I not pressed for except. on the first charge of failing to pay award rates. For the defendant Mr Lovell expressed his agreement with the facts placed before the Court, and in view of his client’s actions to remedy matters suggested that at least three of the breaches be treated as trivial. 'A penalty of £2 was inflicted on the first charge end £1 on each of the remaining three with departmental expenses £1 Is and Court costs 2/-.

At the same sitting the Inspector of Awards also took action against Mr JHodgijts. proprietor of the Denniston Hotel for two breaches of the same award as follows: (a) That he employed a young lady in his establishment without providing lodging for her and without paying her the weekly allowance of 10/- in addition to her wage of 32/6 per week and (b) that the same employee did not receive every week a full holiday of 24 consecutive hours as required by the award. Mr Snedden stated that the only point, in disput on tlie first charge was as to whether lodging had or had not been provided. It was admitted that the father of the girl specially arranged with Mr llodgetts for the girl to stay at home but the law was clear on the point that the parties could not contract out of the benefits or terms of an award. Evidence was called in support of the charge and to the effect that a room had not. been kept available for the girl’s use even as a rest ropim For the defence; Mr Malony called the proprietor and the employee’s father to prove their arrangement which both regarded as satisfactory to themselves whilst the former maintained that the girl could have had a room if she had so desired. Ilis Worship held that lodging had not been provided consequently the extra weekly payment of 10/- was due to Hie worker and awarded the plaintiff a penalty of £l. On the 2nd charge the Inspector said that the facts were agreed upon and it was admitted that the. breach had been committed, but it would be submitted by the defence that he girl had equivalent time off. The award was clear on the point and in view of complaints received the Department was enforcing the correct interpretation. Evidence was given by the defendant to show that the employee was only engaged for about 42 hours each week, but the production of the wages book showed entries of six days of eight hours each. A penalty of £1 was awarded on this breach togther with Departmental costs of £l. Is.