LAUNDRY ALLOWANCE

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12620, 3 December 1926, Page 11

LAUNDRY ALLOWANCE

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD ACTION AGAINST HOTEL PROPRIETOR SMALL PENALTY IMPOSED At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday the’inspector of awards (Mr W, Mountjoy) proceeded against Mr P. E. Low, proprietor of the Trocadero Hotel, for failing to pay laundry allowance to four waitresses from March 31st to July 28th under the private hotel employees’ award. Under the award it is specified in clause 165, “that where the employer does not launder the aprons, capp, and facings worn by employees, he or she shall provide laundry accommodation for same to be ■ done on the premises, or in lieu thereof shall pay 3s per week in addition to wages prescribed.” Clause 16c isays that laundry accommodation means use of tubs, copper, laundry irons, and drying accommodation. Lewis W. Metcalfe visited the Trocadero Hotel, and found kerosene tins being used for boiling aprons. Mrs Low, wife of the proprietor, was approached, and j told that she ■ would have to pay laundry allowance owing to lack of facilities., “NO CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT j’ Miss E. Mills, formerly head waitress, stated that the waitresses were allowed to wear any kind of aprons they -liked provided it was small and white. They were allowed to boil their aprons in kerosene tins, which were placed on the stove They were allowed to put the tins on the fire any time they liked. Refusal was never given. An electrio iron was provided for- ironing. Witness had never had any cause for complaint. Mr \V. Mountjoy stated that the Labour Department claimed £l2 18s from Mr Low. At this stage Mr P. Shorland (for Mr Low) asked that the plaintiff be nonsuited. This was refused by the magistrate (Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.). “WAITRESSES PERFECTLY SATISFIED.” Mr Shorland then informed the court that tho waitresses were perfectly satisfied with the conditions at the

hotel, especially as they were allowed to send their aprofts to the laundry with the other articles sent from the hotel if they so desired. '■ “It seems to me after hearing the evidence that there may be a breach of the awsCrd,” observed the magistrate in summing up the case, “but the breach does not appear to be of very great importance. The only question is whether or not sufficient laundry accommodation was provided. The employees had an opportunity of using the accommodation that was supplied. I think, however, there has been a breach—not a substantial one — and a nominal penalty of 10s will meet the case.” Witnesses’ expenses were fixed at ss.