A COOK'S WAGES

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 11, 28 January 1937, Page 13

A COOK'S WAGES

Case Against Tearoom Proprietress AWARD NOT OBSERVED Judgment for £21 17/6, together with two penalties of £1 each and costs of £3 7/-, against Frances Millicent Lorigan, married woman, of Hastings, was given by Mr J. Miller, S.M., in th© Hastings Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, in two claims arising out of an alleged breach of an award and the Finance Act. Evidence was given to show that defendant employed a pastrycook in her tearooms aib a rate less than that prescribed by the award. A claim was made for wages totalling £21 17/6, and the Labour Department sued for a penalty for each ofienee. Mr W. Selwyn Averill appeared for defendant. Edith Laurie Russell, married woman, stated that she had been employed at the O-so-Kosy by Mrs. Lbrigan to cook cakes and savouries in on upstairs kitchen, there being two kitchens, one upstairs and one downstairs. She received no assistance and worked alone. She was a qualified cake cook when she joined the staff. Mrs Uorigan' had told her that she was sorry she was not able to pay her the full award wages, but promised to do so as soou as business improved. This promise was never kept. 'Cross-examin-ed by Mr' Averill witness admitted that she was a friend of Mrs Lorigan and this had influenced her in getting the position. She was not supervised in her work. Witness was classified in the w^ges book as an apprentice. In reply to a question by Mr Wood witness said that a day after she had given notice, Mr Lorigan adopted a threatening attitude when she mentioned making a compiaint about her wages. Mabel Over, married woman, said she was employed at ihe O-so-Kosy, and; took up her appointment on the same day as Mrs Russell joined the staff. She was a kitcbea hand jn the downstairs kitchen. She had heard Mr Lorigan say that Mrs Russell was the best cake cook they had ever hiad. She had never seen Mrs Lorigan or Miss Lorigan instructing Mrs Russell. Qross-examined by Mr Averill, witness said that though Mrs Lorigan could have gone upstajrs without her knowing of it, she was sure Mrs Lor» igan never gave any assistance to Mrs Russell. Witness never had anything to do with the upstairs kitchen. Ethel Eileen Price. single girl, said she worked at the O-so-Kosy as waitress. She did much of her work in the upstairs kitchen with Mrs Russell, but never saw either Mrs Lorigan or Miss Lorigan in that kitchen, and did not a,f any time see anyone showing Mrs Russell how to do her work. Eileen Augusta Birch, single woman, employed at the O-so-Rosy, said that she was a waitress upstafrs. She had seen Mrs Lorigan in the upstairs kitchen, but usually late jn the day, and hed never seen her instructing Mrs Russell, She was in and out of the kitchen frequently and had seen Mrs Russell doing the cooking. For the defence, Mr Averill submitted that Mrs Lorigan, who had charge of the downstairs kitchen, was really the cook, and Mrs Russell was em- J Xiloyed as an apprentice and received mstruction from Mrs Lorrigan and her daughter. Mr Wood .asserted that .there was no such thhig as an apprentice (except under the pastrycooks5 award, which did not cover this case). Mrs Russell could not be a profaationer for she was over 19, and also he would have had to have been notified had she been .employed in this capacity. Mr Averill stated that Mrs Lorigan had wade inquiries from the Labour Department and ascertained the wages for an apprentice cook and had adliered tp tbese. Mr Miller imposed a penalty of £2 for each breach, but after an application from Mr Averill for the penalty to be reviewed in the lighfc of the amount of damages a reduction was made to £1 for each offence.