TEAROOMS AWARD

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 215, 11 August 1937, Page 3

TEAROOMS AWARD

INTERPRETATION DESIRED. magistrates’ decision. Per Press Association. HAMILTON, Aug. 10. The first ruling on the meaning of part of the New Zealand Tearooms and Restaurant Employees’ Award, 1936, one of particular -importance to caterers throughout the Dominion, was given by Mr 8. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, today, when giving reserved decision in a ease in which the Labour Department claimed a £lO penalty against Adams and Sons, caterers, Auckland, for an alleged breach of the award in that the firm underpaid a casual pantrymaid at Te Rapa races on Eebrury 20. A further claim for a £lO penalty was brought on the grounds that travelling time had not been paid. The interpretation of the award has been awaited with interest by firms in every part of New Zealand. The main issue in the action was the meaning of clauses 7 and 8 of the award. The Magistrate held that defendants did not carry on a tearoom or restaurant business at Green Lane, Auckland, but purely a catering business, and the Green <Lane premises comprised only a dwelling house and a garage used as a depot. An appreciable part of this business consisted of catering for race meetings under contracts with various clubs. The terms of these contracts, usually arranged by tender, were held as being that defendants usually paid to racing clubs a certain sum for the privilege of occupying part of the club’s premises and supplying meals and refreshments to race patrons at prices limited by the clubs. Various other caterers in New Zealand ran businesses on similar lines. The Magistrate held that this contention of defendant was substantially correct, Tfs he did with a further contention that clauses 7 and 8 of the award were inconsistent and anomalous and that there was no class of labour to which clause 8 (f) could apply unless it was casual labour employed away from the employer’s premises for functions lasting only an hour or two. “The award does not appear to have drawn to cover catering businesses of the nature of that carried on by defendants,” said Mr Paterson, in giving judgment for defendants. At the hearing of the case the defence submitted that the award was anomalous and they desired an early clarification of tho position. An alteration to the interpretation as at present understood by all caterers in New Zealand would mean that thousands of pounds would have to be paid in back wages, and, further, until a definite ruling was obtained no company could tender for race meetings with any degree of safety for fear that a big loss would be made. The dispute mainly concerned clauses 7 and 8 of the award which detailed different rates of wages for casual employees engaged on a firm’s premises or away from them. Defendants submitted that they had only a depot at Auckland, where no cooking was done, whereas plant was kept at each racecourse. 'Thus the racecourse was the firm's premises. Tbp labour Department did rfot agree with this, but admitted that the award was ambiguous.