OVERTIME CLAIM

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 139, 29 June 1937, Page 12

OVERTIME CLAIM

Hotel Manager's Wile Fails in Suit for £190 MANGATERA™OTEL CASE Judgment for plaintiff for £1 10/-, with costs, for arrears ih wages and judgment for the defendant with costs in the claim for overtime were entered by Mr. J. Miller, S.M., in the Dannevirke Magistrate 'a Court in a reserved judgment in the action brought by Mrs. M. Payne against Dudley Newbigin for wages And overtime afiegedly owing. Mr, Ongley appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. E. J. Hallett for the defendant, who is the owner of the Mangatera Hotel, Dannevirke. Eyidence was given that ptaintiff 's huaband was engaged in April, 1936, to enanage- the hotel at £2 10/- a week ju addition to the keep of his family, Iu May, 1936, the cook left and Mrs. Payne was employed a# cook-general at £2 a week, This rate was fixed 'under the country-hotel rate of the award, but the Magistrate decided that this was not a country hotel and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for 30/-, The main dispute, said Mr. Miller, concerned Qvertime. PlaintifC* said that she had worked 84 hours a week and claimed £19Q 18/4 for overtime. Duriug ompleyment the payment of ' overtime had, no doubt, never been conteaiplated and a claim had not entered Mrs. Payne^s mind until after her husband-'s services had been terminated. The defendant had not known ' that Mrs. Payne had been working overtime. Mrs. Payne 's overtime, not doubt, consisted of mauy duties she had been performing in assistiug her husband, and a great part of her working hours must have been occupied ip attending to the ueeds of her owu family. The wages-book she had signed showed that she had 'had tke ugual time olf. Plaintih had said that the accountant had asked her to falsify the hook, but he had deuied this and the Magistrate said he vvould accept the aceouutattt version. "The award provides for a worker iilliiig jn a form and handing ifc to the umplpyor within 48 hours of t)ie day pu which guy Qvertixus WftP worked, ' ' said Mr. Miller, f'It may be that there are cases in which, notwithstanding the failure to comply with that clause, a worker may succeed in a claim for overtime; for example,fin the case of ap. einployer's knowing his employee was actuaily worMiig evertjme or where be should have. known it. But if an employer had P0 cneans of knowing other than by advipe froxn, an employee, It would be in. some cases grossly unfair tg ash an employer to meet a belatpd and large claiiu for overtime," Mrs. Payue's claim together with her or(}inary wages, exceeded the total takings for tho period, The hotel had been run at a loss during Mr. Payne ;s management. The overtime notice iu her aase had been icnportant to enable the employer to distinguish her duties as employee, as mother of her family and as Jicensee's wife, Mr. Miller said he was not satisfied that Mrs. Payne had w.orkecl overtime!

which she had claimed to have done in the kitchen as a cook. Two othei cooks at the hotel had given evidence that the hours were much below ordinary working hours. Mrs. Payne had claimed uniform overtime every day, although on rnany days there had been no casuals and only one or two permanent boarders. Her work as a general had been done only during slack time.. For her extra duties as cook her husband 's wages had been increased. to £3 a week, He had offered her 10 per cent. of this but she had refused it and he had retained the money. Her wages, in effect, had amounted to 10/- over the award rate.