BREACH OF AWARD

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 84, 6 October 1914, Page 7

BREACH OF AWARD

HOTEL PROPRIETOR PROSECUTED. The proprietor of the City' Buffet Hotel (F. J. Oakes) was prosecuted in thft Magistrato'B Court to-day for an allegod breach of the hotel worker*' award, in that ho failed to allow a worker, onb Carter, a full day's holiday of 24 hours in each of two weeks. The informations were laid by the Labour Department. Charles Carter said he was employes as chef, and as a rule had 1 every Tuesday off. On Tuesday, 11th August, however, he was sent for by the second cook, because another assistant had taken ill. tlo made endeavours to (secure another man, but was unsuccessful. He saw that them was -little prospect of the dinner being ready in time, so ho turned-ta himself. Mr. Oakeß had no idea that witness was working, nhd did not find out until later, when ho gave him an extra 12s 6a. k On the following Tuesday, he served a jury dinner at th© Supreme Court, because Mr. Oakes could find nobody else to do the work. Witness did not prepare the dinner; ho did no work in tho kitchen, that day. He received 2s 6d extra for this work. - . John Teel, tho second cook, stated that there was no need for .Carter's asfctet' ance on 11th August, and that Cartel' had been sent for on Mr. Oakes's in>tia« tive. If Carter had not returned, thd dinner would have been ready no usua). Henry H. Moston, inspector of awards, who conducted tho prosecution, stated that Oakes had admitted employing Carter on the 18th August to sorva the jury dinner, but denied that Carlor had boon employed on any other holiday. Thereupon tho inspector interviewed Carter, and when he returned Oakos ad> mittcd that the chef had been employed on tho 11th August. Ho said ho ( had forgotten that occasion. The holiday* book was signed Up for a full holiday. Mr. J. J. M'Grath, who appeared for tho defence, submitted that both informs tions should be dismissod, and no strongly objected to Mr. Oakes being brought to ihe Court, and having to submit to tha " pin-oricking methods of the Labour Department." Mr. Moston said that it was difficult to know where to draw the lino. In this case lie had mado particular enquiries. He did not think Mr. Oakes was tho man who would wilfully commit a breach of tho award. The inspectors Ohly did theirduty. There was a sharp passage between counsel and th© inspector, which his Worship interrupted. Mr. I). G. A. Cooper, S.M., imposed a, nominal penalty of Is in the first case, which ho termed a " technical breach," and dismissed the second information.