OVERTIME CLAIM

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 119, 5 June 1937, Page 8

OVERTIME CLAIM

-Own Correspondent.)

Woman's Suit Against Hastings Brewer DECISION RESERVED

(By Telegxaph-

DANNEVIRKE, This Day. A eivil action was commenced in. the Magistrate 'a Court on Thursday, before Mr J. iMiller, S.M., when M. Payne, married woman, sought to rocover from D. Newbigin, brewer, Hastings, formerly xnanager of .the Mangatara Hotel, £192 8s 4d overtime while employed there for some time in 1936. Mr A. M.' Ongley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hallett, of Hastings, for the defendant. Plaintiff, at present employed as a cook at the Manchester Hotel, Feilding, deposed tiiat 'her -husband was appointed manager of the Mangatera jHotel in April,.1936. During the first jweek she relieved the cook and did the laundry work, for which she was offered 10s per week. She xefused the offer, but continued to relieve the girls without any payment. " On May 11 she was toffered the position of cook-general, 'which she accepted. She did not Teceive the full award rates,. receiving £2 a week. A new award, eame in in June and she received £2 9s per week. When witness took over the position of cookgeneral the staff had been reduced to two, including witness and a house-maid-waitress. Mr Ongley: Who did the laundry . work? — I did. Witness said that in September her daughter was employed as housemaid. She commenced duty at six in the morning and finished for the day aboufc 8 o'clock at night. Mr Ongley: Where did you have your ■mealsf — In the kitchen. Witness said for about ,two months — 'August and September — there were 10 xegular boarders in the house. She was supposed to get a day and a-half off in the week, but only* received two weekjends. She signed the -wages book as 'if she had had her time off. Defendant 's xepresentative, Mr Bayliss, told her that Mr Newbigin. would make it up to her later by giving her a good position in another hotel. Mr Bayliss ■was aware .that she was working 14 hours a day. She never xeceived any 'overtimA 1 Replying to Mr Hallett, "sfitness said |she did not tell Mr Bayliss that she was working over 12 hours a day. Mr Hallett: • Was not the arrangeiment in the first place that -your husband and yourself and family were t>' jgo into the Mangatera Hotel, hold the> (license and run it? — Yes. . So that your husband went into thei 'hotel as manager I — Yes. You practically aeted as hostess.? — I' 'had no time to entertain. TJntil you were appointed cook youj ihelped your husband in the hotel?—; Yes. Replying furtheiv to counsel, witness! said when she was appointed cookgeneral she was informed that she was to xeceive the standard rate of pay for such work. To the magistrate, witness said the claim for overtime was not made untii after the expiratiou of her engagement 'at the hotel. Mr Hallett: The actual cook's work Would not take more than six or seven hours a day? — It would be more than that. About 10 hours. E. E. Payne, formerly licenaee of the {Mangatera Hotel, stated that when he entered the hotel he was to manage the place for two or three weeks, when he was. promised by the def endant to be given something better. . He was to treceive £2 10s per week, wlth keep for his wife and family. The arrangement in regard to wages was " maintained until he objected, when he received £3 per week, which was leas than a barman's wages. Mr Hallett referred to the lapse of time before plaintiff took sieps to xecover the overtime.- Obviously if thei claim for overtime had been made at the proper time and in the proper manner the whole position would have been altered. The magistrate: Yes, the work would have been discontinued. Mr Hallett: And new arrangements Would have been made. He added that Mr aiid Mrs Payne had been appointed in the ordinary way and this arrangement continued until May 11, when the cook left. During the time the Paynes were in the house it was run at a loss. Kenneth Bayliss, registered accountant, who acted as defendant 's representative, deposed to h'aving kept the books of the hotel, and as to the arrangements made with Mr Payne for managing the hotel. When the Paynes went into the hous8 the then cook was receiving £2 per week, and she had never made any claim for overtime.' It was hoped that the business at the hotel would improve and that Mr Payne 's wages would be increased, but unfortunatcly this did not materialise. He used to visit the hotel once a month. Mr Hallett: Did Mrs Payne ever expresa any dissatisfaction with her posij tion? — No. ^ ' Was there ever any suggestion made by Mrs Payne — or Mr Payne — that Mrs Payne was entitled to overtime! — No. Replying to Mr Ongley, witness said Mrs Payne was paid the standard rate for cooks employed in a country hotel. The magistrate said the hotel could not be treated as a country hotel, but as a town hotel. Replying to Mr Ongley, witness said he had difficulty in getting Mr Payne to keep the records at tiie hotel accurately, particularly as to the hours worked. He was entirely unaware that Mrs Payne was working overtime. He was never told that Mrs Payne hafi never had her day and a-half off each vreek. Mr Ongley: The arrangement was that Mr Payne went into the hotel with the promise of something better? — I aave heard a good deal about that but [ know nothing of it. I might have suggested that "Mr Newbigin would iot forget you." Evidence was given by Mrs Newriek, trifs of the present Aicensw, that he*

duties consisted of assisting in the work of the house, and in relieving the employees. She also relieved the cook whenever it was her day off. Witness did not think that the cooking should occupy a total of 10 hours a day. Mrs K. Marsh, who was employed at the Mangatera Hotel as a cook from December till Easter, said she never worked more than 7 i hours, with the exception of show time, when she probably did not work more than 8$ hours. She had plenty of time to spare and was able to do a lot of knitting. His Worship reserved his decision.