Appeal Court.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 July 1922, Page 1

Appeal Court.

WELLINGTON, July 2! Tho Court of Appeal heard argument this morning in the ease of Chapman v. the Rendezvous, Ltd, an appeal from the judgment of Mr Justice Adams, at Christchurch. R. J. Chapman claimed tho sum of C-'J 10s from the* Hemlozvous, Ltd., allegedly due as the balance of unpaid wages during the period from May 9th to July Kith. Chapman was a salesman in a hardware shop during the day, but added to his earnings by working at the Rendezvous, Ltd., restaurant for two hours every night. For this lie was paid Cl 10s per week. Tie claimed lie was entitled, under t'hc present award, to the minimum weekly wage payable under the award to a full-time waiter. This amounted to C2 15s per week. Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court, held that Chapman's employment did not eoine within the award of the Arbitration Court, and that the Rendezvous, Ltd., was not liable for the amount claimed. From this judgment Chapman appealed. Before the Court of Appeal this morning, Sir John Findlay, and with him Mr Johnston, appeared for appellant, and Mr Alpers, and with him Mr E. W. White, for respondent. Sir John Findlay said that Chapman was a waiter within the meaning of the award, and was therefore entitled to the niinimiim award rate for a waiter. The purpose of tlie award was to do away with partial time for a .waiter, such as appellant. The Arbitration Court had done this by providing that such a waiter as Chapman must get the full minimum wage, no matter how few hours he worked up to forty-eight per week. Mr Alpers, for the respondent, said that the award did not prevent an employee from contracting with an employer for employment for less than forty-eight hours per week, provided that a proper proportion of the weekly wage was paid. In the present case niore than the required proportion had been paid. Tho Court rosorved its docisiQiu «