ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARDS

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 140, 10 December 1918, Page 7

ALLEGED BREACHES OF AWARDS

Mr. R. T. Bailey, Inspector, of Awards, took action at the Magistrate's Court this morning -against several employers for non-compliance with the provisions of various awaras.

D. Robertson ' and Co., Ltd., were penalised in the sum of 10s for failing to send in notice of the taking on of apprentiosg, as required by the Wellington Engineers' Award. Mr. E. M. Beechey, who appeared for the defendant firm, admitted the facts, and explained that the breach of the award had been due to a fault of a servant of the company. Miss E. G. Read was charged with, having committed ,a breach of the Hotel and Restaurant Workers' Award in failing to pay award rates to several kitchen Sfends. Mr. A. W. Blair, for the defendant, held that .the workers in question ' did not come within the terms of the award, as they were merely employed during the midday rush hours at the Stafford Tea Rooms, not to take part in culinary operationSj but merely to carve and serve. He held that the workers came' under the heading of "midday waitresses."" ■>

Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., did not agree that the women concerned came under the heading "midday waitresses" ; it appeared to him that they were not provided for by the award. Finally the 1 case was adjourned sine die, to enable the case to be stated for the Arbitration Court.

Aotion was taken against Matthew Muir, licensee of the Post Office Hotel, who, it was stated, had dismissed 1 Miss. Cocking, who had been, employed (as a night porter at the hotel, without notice or wages in lieu of notice. The employee stated that after_ haying done two nights' work, she was dismissed because she was. quarter of an hour late in coming on duty on the third night. She was given neither notice nor the two days' pay due to her.

/ Mr. M. Myers said that the defendant did not.admit that the circumstances as outlined by the employee were correct. On the second night she did not come on duty till 10.20, and on the third night was an hour late. Th^ licensee's wife told her that, she' must commence to time,, but on the fourth night the employee did not put in an appearance, and did not make definite application for her money for some time afterwards. Witness then ignored her. The Magistrate considered that a breach of the award had been committed, and 1 gave judgment for the plaintiff in ■the sum of £1.