LAW SAID TO BE MOST UNJUST

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 113, 6 February 1937, Page 8

LAW SAID TO BE MOST UNJUST

Female Assistants’ Hours RESTAURANT BUSINESSES SUFFERING By Telegraph—Press Association. Dunedin, February 5. That the law which precluded restaurant proprietors from employing female assistants from 10.30 p.m. was a most unjust one was the opinion expressed in the Magistrate's Court by Mr. J. S. Sinclair during the hearing of a charge of employing fi female assistant after this hour. Defendant was Phillip Barling, who pleaded guilty. Defendant, Mr. Sinclair said, was not wilfully defying the law. Other restaurants were breaking this most unjust law and the worst offender was the Government itself. During the holidays railways restaurants were open through the whole night, and girls were employed during that time not only for 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour after 10.30. The Government. in effect, realised the impracticability of enforcing the regulation. The magistrate: I do not know whether the Act applies to railway restaurants or not.

.Mr. Sinclair: But surely these restaurants are not exempt? Restaurant-keepers, Mr. Sinclair contended, were placed in a difficult position. Tlie law did not say that their premises must be closed at 10.30. It simply said that female assistants must not be employed after that hour. This created an impossible situation, ns male assistants could not be procured, and if employers could not keep girls on for a quarter of an hour after 10.30 they might as well close up. The after-picture trade was their bear source of revenue.

•'I appreciate the difficulty,” observed his Worship, “but I must take the law as it is.” Mr. Sinclair said that the matter was a serious one for restaurants. His client was not the only offender. Other big restaurants did it, and if they did not they must go to the wall. If the Minister fully considered the question he would no doubt see the injustice of the law, aud as a matter of fact restaurant proprietors from all parts of the Dominion proposed joining in a deputation to interview the Minister and ask that the matter be reviewed. In fairness to his client, therefore, counsel asked that, pending this deputation, the Labour Department to agree to an adjournment. This particular law had not been enforced for 16 years. Mr. A. J. Haub, who represented the department, said that prosecutions under the section had taken place in 1928, 1931. and 1935. He did not think, howewer. that the department would object to an adjournment as suggested by Mr. Sinclair.

The hearing was adjounfed sine die, to be brought on at three days’ notice.