HOTEL EMPLOYEES' HOURS.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 December 1920, Page 5

HOTEL EMPLOYEES' HOURS.

BREACH OF AWARD. LICENSEE FINED. At Hawera yesterday reserved decision was given by Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., in a ease brought by the factory inspector (Mr. W. J. Mountjoy) against H. E. Card, of the Central Hotel, Hawera, on November Mi, for alleged breaches of the hotel workers' award. His Worship stated: There are five counts in this action against the defendant, who is the licensee of the Central Hotel, Hawera, for breaches of tiie Taranaki Hotel Employees' Award. The first count is for not exhibiting a time-table setting forth the working hours of each employee, .in some convenient place in the hotel! The defence is that the time-table had been posted up in the office, but that owing to repairs it had been taken down, and had not been re-posted when the inspector called. It is quite clear that the timetable had not been posted up for some considerable time, and an offence is proved. In any event Ido not consider that the office can fairly be called a convenient place for the posting up of a time-table. The place where the timetable is exhibited should be some place which is convenient of access to all the employees. Though the office may be convenient for many of the employees, it is not convenient for some of them, as for instance the kitchen hands. It should be in a place where Rny employee could inspect it at his leisure at any time of the day. The plaintiff is entitled to judgment on this count for £3.

The second count is for a breach of the award in not keeping a record in the time and wages book of the hours worked by, and the wages paid to, Walter Smith, head barman. The defence is that Smith is not a barman, but a bar manager. It appears from the evidence that Smith does all the work of a head barman, and in addition to that was given the responsibility of purchasing liquor, and other work more responsible than is usually entrusted to barmen. The defendant claims that Smith is a bar manager, and as such is not under the award. I cannot agree with this contention. If he does the work of a barman as his principal work, he is a barman and is under the award. Mr. Justice Sim,, in answering a question submitted for the interpretation of the Auckland Hairdressers' Award, thus expresses himself: "Any person employed to do any such work, whether he is called a working manager or anything else, is a worker coming within the scope of the award." (Awards, etc., NT .102.) As the defendant thought he was within his rights in this matter, and no one has suffered any injustice, the case does not call for a heavy penalty. Judgment will be for £l. The next three counts of the claim are in respect of breaches of the award in not giving a full day's holiday to two waitresses, they by their own refive weeks of race week, in which the holiday accrued. In the cases of the two" waitresses, they at their own request allowed their holiday to accumulate and be added to a holiday that they were having, and did have, to Palmerstnn North. There i» no provision for this sort of thing, and the awards mustbe carried out to the strict letter of the law. As the employees were parties to these breaches of the award, and have Buffered no injury, the caseß will be met with a penalty of £l' in «wh of the two oases. In the other case, that of H. Jeffrey, the penalty will be £2. The total'judgment will be for £R. Mr. Mount joy appeared for the Labor Department and Mr. G, H. Evan for UefsndsDt,