HOTEL LICENSEES.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 July 1924, Page 4

HOTEL LICENSEES.

INTERESTING LAW POINT.

TTAI.ARE. July 9

A ease of tonsidcrtdilo interest to lintel lii'om-oes came before the T itnartt Court to-dav (Mr K. I). Mosley, X.M., pre.si'lingX when the inspector ot factories (Mr .1. E. Arnold) proceeded against Mrs C. H. Allen, licensee of the (Jrosvenor Hotel, for £l*o for broaches of the Licensed Hotel Employees’ Award. Mr AA'. IX Catnpliell appeared for the defendant. Mr Arnold said that the licensee of the Gnwvcnor Hotel was charged with two breaches of the Licensed Hotel employees’ Award. A man named Ahraham was employed as chief cook in a kitchen where four hands were employed, and received more than the award rate. He elected to hoard in his ov.n homo, and he was entitled to IDs a week in addition to the amount of the wattes he was ] aid. A douhl had been raised in Mrs Allen’s mind as to the legality of paying it. In the other instance Mr> Allen was charged with not paying the amount due in full. Ahraham was entitled to ovettime rales on eeitain fixed holidays. hut lie was nut paid the overtime rates. He pave forty-eight hours’ notice on a Monday. Tuesday was his weekly holiday, so he did not work, and he did not appear for the two hours lie should have worked on the Wednesday morning. He was not paid for the foily-eight hours. Mr Campbell said the defence was that Mrs Allen was not hound by the award, which came into force on March 17. She took over the hotel ill November last, so if it was intended to make her n party to the award she should have lieen cited as a paity and this had not been done. Mr .f. I'. Murphy had been cited. Mr Arnold said Mr Murphy had been a party to the previous award. Mr Campbell said the hotel should he joined automatically to the award. The name of the hotel in each ease in the a waul was mentioned before the name of the occupier.

The magistrate said that if the lads were as stated an obvious injustice had been done the employees.

Mr Campbell said that under the circumstan.es there was no injustice, lie had received £o a week uhoto the award said lie should receive Cl ]2s. A finii;| loom had aLo been provided for the cook end another man. lie had not been imposed upon ill any way. Mr Arnld said that this question had a wide hearing on many other awards; if a dispute were pending it would lie seen that there would he a great many changes in managership and ownership in vaiinus businesses affected by awards. There should le some amending legislation making the hotels parlies and not the owners. The magistrate said it was contrary to British justice that a person should

be humid by any agreement in which he (or slid had no say til tlie start. It seemed to him to lie qtiie clear that ir. was the person and not the business that should lie bound. H was a most interesting point. It was so interesting that he would take time to look into it. Judgment would be reserved.