A LODGING QUESTION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 129, 1 June 1907, Page 6

A LODGING QUESTION.

ARBITRATION COURT CASE. The Arbitration Court delivered judgment to-day in the cases brought by the Inspector of Factories against Kitkcaldiu and Stains, Ltd. In the first case respondents wew charged with committing a breach of an industrial agreement by employing Misses. O'Grady, White, Barnard, Boyd, Hooper, and Pearce as waitresses, cooks, and kitchen hands, and fading to pay them the rates fixed by clause 5 of the cooki> and waiters' agreement, or (in the alternative) to provide suitable lodgings. r lhe court referred to clause- 5, portion of which says: — "Where lodging is not provided they (the employees) hliall be allowed an extra 5s por week, provided always that if the employer is willing, and offers to piovide suitable lodging lor his employee, and the employes piefeiis to lodge elscwhete, no allowance shall bs paid for lodging. After reciting various facts, fully reported when the case was heard, the court went on to say that respondent mentioned he intended to provide lodging for th*> girls (who required it) in one of the houses he was having built, but nothing was done m the way of carrying this intention into effect, and respondent had not a I any time since provided lodging for any of the girls employ-sd in the restaurant, and -girls who had been engaged since were told v. hen being engaged that the wagos were 17s 6d per week wicuout lodging. The court held that respondent was intended to be bound by tho agreement, and was satisfied that the firm had not at any time been willing to provides suitable lodging, for its employees. The offer made by Mr. Kirkcaldie to the employees was made not for the purpose of being accepted, but to enable the respondent to escape, if possible, the obligation imposed by tha recommendation of paj ;ng 5s per week in .lieu of providing lodging. The offer of lodging- to tho employees was not made -until January, but nothing was paid to them for lodging for the period ■between the date when the recommendation came into force (29th November, 1906) and the date in January when this offei was made. The ingenuity of counsel was nob ablo to suggest any justification or excuse for failure to pay in respect of that period. t The fact that a girl had a home in AVellington did not make any difference in her 1 rights. She must be paid the additional ss, unless and until her employer was willing to provide her with suitable •lodging. AVhea that had been dons 'and she elected not to accept the offer, the employer was ielie\ed from the ■duty to pay 5s per week. Respondent had been guilty of a breach, and a fine of £5 would be imposed, in addition to Inspector's disbursements, fees of court, and witnesses' expenses to be fixed by the Clerk of Awards. In the second case, charging respondents with a breach of secteion 108 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act by dismissing two waitresses becAuse they were entitled to tho benefit of clause 5 of the Cooks and ATaiters' award, a fine of £5 and costs was also imposed. The charge arose out of the circumstances set out in the last case. It was clear, the court hold, that the two girls concerned in the case were dismissed because they were entitled to certain benefits under the recommendation, and had refused to sign £. paper saying they did not desire to have these benefits.