Labour Department Denies Biased Action

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 757, 2 September 1929, Page 10

Labour Department Denies Biased Action

HEARING OF APPEAL HOTEL WORKERS’ DISPUTE \V B have been accused of partiality I in this case and it has been said we are bringing all our heavy artillerv forward to win it for the union.'* So said the Inspector of A wards, Mr. G. F. Grieve, at the Arbitration Court this morning, prior to the hearing of an appeal against a decision of th* lower court. On July 1 of this year the Labour Department proceeded against William Frederick Prior, proprietor of the Strand Cafe, Queen Street, for allegedly paying a girl in his employ less than the award wages. Judgment was given for defendant, and to. day's action was an appeal against it. It was alleged that Prior had engaged the girl to do work, including the washing of plates used in the din-ing-room in the service of hot meals, paying her less than kitchen hand's or general hand’s wages. MAGISTRATE’S DECISION The magistrate, Mr. Wyvern Wilson. S.M., said that the defendant employed a servant as a pantrymaid and it was alleged that as she had washed plates she should have been paid the higher rate of pay. In dismissing the case against defendant the magistrate held that it was customary la some restaurants for a pantrymaid to wash plates. “The rumour of our partiality i n this case came back to the department in Auckland, and we have been interviewed about it. The employers have been perturbed about the rumour, which I wish to contradict,” said Mr. Grieve this morning. Mr. Justice Blair: I can assure you, Mr. Grieve, that the court has never heard any suggestion of the department's partiality. TEST CASE Mr. Grieve: The case is brought as a test case, by us, though it has been suggested that only an interpretation of the award should be sought, instead of taking direct action as wo have done. His Honour: There was obviously only the one thing for you to do when a question of facts was in dispute. Mr. Grieve said that the argument would be over the words “pantrymaids” and “plates.” It was not the usual custom of pantrymaids to wash plates and therefore the girl should have been employed as a general or a kitchen hand. Mr. S. E. Wright, for the employers, argued that the judgment given for defendant was correct inasmuch as the washing of plates was a custom by pantrymaids. Mr. Wright attempted to introduce fresh evidence but was debarred. “Well, X can only say it appears to me that the rumour that the department was biased in this case is evidently true,” he said. His Honour: No, lam responsible for this bias. This court, then, takeß the biased view, and I propose to retain a bias I have had for many years. We must accept the facts dealt with In the lower court. This is an appeal from a decision and not a retrial. We cannot deal with any other facts unless we reopen the case entirely. Mr. Wright: Well, I would like to see the whole case reopened. His Honour: Well, this court would not. We will deal with the present facts. After further argument as to the meaning o? the word “plate” the Court reserved its decision.