EATING BETWEEN MEALS.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 280, 23 August 1915, Page 2

EATING BETWEEN MEALS.

iUu J—U-UJLi Kjx!' x“ xJ x 1 i Li ABO Jit FKuiaLuO ii oA UIBMIwBBA ' 'ihe L..U-UJ impm.mmc t,uu o iio j.mm y*. l 0 O*.! i. i. V «. O i uawuU*.axit c*.iiCi meni employees, e.c., aware, a hreacn tv VI L lu-'»l)olo £"•*--•*- iv~ cv i.*U - O i-.- to O tv; L A.l vB _i‘ t Ciu, i liiti mc ioouG W clo u 3 to the uoarcl auu iua o wii; emuse o. tne ii „ Ulu, Oil" JOiUi n 1 Lf. it. Ti~ggaru appvULcvi. o.i „fcx.aA ut uie aelAj.rtm.cnc, a*iu Messrs ivirKaidie and Stains were represented by Mr C. t. Skervett, K.C., and Mr E. K Kirkeaiuie blie award provided tliat two substantial meals per day should be supplied for the employees, or a corxeoyOaQiiis money payment must be xm.d 0 ana the Court was arnica to rule wiia. constituted a substantial meal. b.r John Findiay stated that the defuiuants supplied a miaday meal as ueli as morning and afternoon tea, ajiu. iij ContMUita mat it ue uefendan . c.u.d iijt pi'aViue tile sciptnate-u second substantial meat after a rea sum. etc interval,' they ought to pay the gk-xs ohj shi.ling each for the meal. The firm gave the girls neither this meal ’nor th e alternative shilling. Evidence was given that th e assistants were allowed morning tea, dinner at 1.40 or 2 o’clock, afternoon tea at 3.30, and tea (with cold meat if wanted), at 5 o’clock after the 1.40 dinner, but at twenty to 5 after the 2 o’clock dinner. The witnesses stated that they very seldom took the lastnamed meal. ;

“Why not?” his Honor asked one of them.

“It's no gocd eating if you don’t fesl hungry,” was the reply. “if she cloys the hungry edge cf appetite at 3.30,” said his Honor to Sir John Findlay, “you can’t very well blamythe employer if she is not ready for a substantial meal at 5 o’clock.” i Laughter).•• o-n

“No,” replied' Sir John, “but she rrijit bo ready for it at 6.30.” “After the premises are closed,” suggested Mr Skerreit, amid laughter. Sir John Findlay: “Yes. There is no need to laugh; sh e should get the meal or the •shilling.” >. Mr‘-Skerrett said the facts testified to wereJ not disputed; indeed, when the number cf meals allowed was men-tioned'he-would net help recalling the remark of the American humorist: “This working between meals will be the Meath of me.” (Laughter). He claimed that the provision for meals at Messrs Kirkcaldie and Stains was very liberal, and tb e firm was also liberal in the matter of hours. They were entitled to work a S&'ihour week, but, as a matter of fact, the hours averaged less than 45 a-week. He asked that the case be dismissed, with costs. His Honor said that the Court were agreed that they-could not give the general interpretaton cf the clause asked fori The 1 award applied to such different classes of trade that each must be dealt with on its merits. The clause was intended to apply, not so much to an establsihment like the one in question, where substantial meals were provided for the public, and where it would be unreasonable to ask a girl to work; all day without substantial meals. In such cases, if the proprietor did not provide the meal he should pay the shilling. It seemed, however, that Messrs Kirkcaldie and Stains treated their employees very, well in the matter of meals. The case would be dismissed, hut not with costs. It was not the practice to give costs where an inspector, under reasonable circumstances, seeks to obtain an interpretaton of an award. In effect, tbe case was an endeavour to gain a general internrstation that would guide tbe inspectors in ether cases. ,