NON-PAYMENT OF OVERTIME

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 156, 20 July 1937, Page 12

NON-PAYMENT OF OVERTIME

Napier Restaurant-Keepei\ Charged INSPECTOR'S ACTI0N Pive charges under the Shops and Offices Amendment Act relating to the non-payment of overtnre, were brought by the Inspector of Awards at Napier, Mr. E. A. Wood, aginst Andrew Paxio, a Napier restaurant-keeper, before Mr. J. Miller, S.M., in the Napier Magistrate's Court yesterday. Following a lengthy hearing, the eases were adjourned in order that ofertime due to two waitresses might be assessed. Mr. John Mason appeared in defenee. Defendant was charged: (1) That he employed a waitress, Ivy Seastrand, and failed to pay her the minimum wages prescribed hy the award; (2) that on April 2, 1937, being the oceupier of a shop within the meaning of the Shops and Offices Act, he failed to keep a wages and time hook in the prescribed form; (3) that, being the oceupier of a shop within the meaning of the Shops and Offices Act, he did, during a period of 24 conseeutive hours in each week, employ Miss Gilda Lupi for extended hours and f ail to pay overtime for such hours at the rate of time and ahalf ; (4) that he failed to give written notice to the inspector within 24 hours of the extended time worked by Miss Gilda Lupi; (5) that he failed to notify the inspector within 24 hours of extended time worked by Miss Ivy Seastrand. The inspector claimed also penalties of £10 for each case of failure to pay overtime. Book Not Kept. The cases in regard to Miss Seastrand were stfiod down, defendant pleading guilty to the seeond charge and not guilty to those in respect of Miss Lupi. Mr. Wood said that an inspection of the hook showed that with the exeeption of scattered entries the book had not heen kept since the last inspection, which had resulted in a prosecution. The language difficulty did not seem to be the cause of the trouble, as entries had heen made at times, and it appeared that t'-e defendent had something to hide. Ivy t:> ad, of Napier, waitress, said sho h-u. been employed by defendant from the beginning of December to Christmas Eve. Her duties commenced at eight o 'clock in the morning,' and she was given an hour off at about two o 'cloclc on occasions. During the time she was there she was never granted a full day off, and her two half-days each week commenced at 2.30 or 3 p.m. instead of at 1 p.m., as was stipulated in the award. For the' time off that was not allowed, and for the Lours worked each day in excess of eight hours, no overtime had been paid. The wages paid were £1 a week. Cross-examined by Mr. Mason, witness denied that she was employed to assist in the house, but said that the work was in the dining-room. On three occasions while she was employed, witness had received more than two afternoons a week. s The complaint was made after she had left the employment of defendant and had discovered that the wages paid were not sufficient, witness added. The Inspector of Factories, Harry Schierning, said that the time-book contained no mention of Miss Seastrand. Waitresses were entitled to work not more than 44 hours in any one week, not more than eight hours in any one day, and were also entitled to one half-day a "week from 1 p.m. and also to 24 conseeutive hours off eaeh week. The girl was entitled to £1 15/a week. Technical Point Raised, Mr. Mason submitted, in regard to the claims for penalty, that the position applied only if the award were in force at the time of the passing of the general order on May 29, 1931. The original award was made in May 6, 1930, but that had been operative for o- year only. There was no evidence before the Court that the award was in' force op May 29, 1931. The Bench: You are taking a technical point now? •Mr. Mason: Yes; I'm not treating the case on its merits now. ■ The inspector said he had sent away for the evidence. The Magistrate said that the case in such circumstances would be dismissed without prejudice. There was no use going into the merits of the case if Mr. Mason were upheld on such grounds. "That entitles you to bring auother summons up on this very case," said the Magistrate to Mr. Wood, in nonsuiting him on the claim for a penalty in regard to Miss Seastrand, Dealing with the other cases, Mr. Mason raised another technical point. submitting that the witness, Miss Seastrand, had not been employed as an assistant, as stated in the information. The Magistrate: Tf on the evidence before me an offenee 5s diselosed, I have power to make an amendment. Mr. Mason: T ain not going to press the point. He submitted that Miss Seastrand had been employed principally to help in the house. Polly Paxie, wifo of the d.efendant, said that Miss Seastrand had been offered £1 a week for a position. She left work usually at two o'cloek in the afternoons, returning sometimes at flvo o 'clock to assist in the shop. She left at Christmas without notice. "Tf emplovers don't keep the proper books they have nothing but their word," said the Magistrate. Mr. Mason then pieaded guilty to the two charges in respect of Miss Lupi, pointing out that both waitresses had been employed for a short period only. The matter was then adjourned.