DOMESTIC LAWS

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 110, 11 May 1935, Page 19

DOMESTIC LAWS

UNFAMI LIAR ASPECTS

The lawsuit which ended recently in the award of damages against an employer for '"enticing a' housemaid" calls attention' to unfamiliar aspects.,of the law as between 'mistress and. maid, writes a barrister in the London "Evening Standard." " ' ;."',.]' Few people realise ■that an- employer and'a maid: enter into, a contract when the employment'begins. ■ At;law,'.anyone who induces a maid to break; this contract improperly by offering special inducements such as higher, wages, or by oth^1 means :of 4persuasion,.lays himself—or iherself-^-b'pen; to an action for damages. ■.'■'.' V ' ' - ', If, however,-the maid .commits:.no breach of contract,in. leaving, her new employer,,or the perso.n who induced her to do so,.is A not liable. THORNY ■;■ QUESTION. Although cases are rarely,brought, there is a whole,field of law. governing the relationship of /mistress and. maid, centring mainly on :the-thorny question of dismissal. ' ■ ' ■ For example, is a. maid bound to obey .an order-on,;pain of dismissal? The answer is that she need hot obey an order to-do work.entirely different from that for which Ishe was engaged, or which, involves risk-to herself. She must, however, obey all lawful orders, and may be dismissed for wilful disobedience. . .■■■■-■•'•.--. Gross rudeness .or.definite neglect of her duties,- provided ; that the neglect is habitual, may also/.ehtitle. the mistress to dismiss her .without notice or wages in lieu of notice. Similarly, if a maid, before engagement, represents 'that she is capable of carrying out certain1 duties,, and is experienced, and .it .is found afterwards that she is neither, she may, be dismissed. . ■.'■■.-,: .; Many employers are afraid to,give truthful references regarding their ■former maids to prospective cemployers, thinking that if they give an adverse one they may be sued for libel. "GOOD" REFERENCES. Not only is this a mistaken idea, but it is also, unfair to; others" who may employ, the maid on the strength of a "good" reference, which the maid's career has not actually warranted. References, provided they, are, given only to the person for'whom they are intended, and are not made maliciously, are regarded as privileged communications, and a mistress cannot be sued for giving an honest opinion in these circumstances, however bad that opinion may be. : As a general rule,'a maid is entitled to one monthjs notice,- and must herself give the same. The notice may be given at any time, taking effect- in one calendar month from the date it is given.