MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21810, 28 August 1934, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, AUGUST 28. (Before Mr J. 11. Bartholomew, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default, with costs, was given for plaintiffs in the following eases:—Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Ltd. v. T. D. Dowling, Owaka Valley, 17s, costs; Farra Bros. Ltd. v. L. J. Paul, £2 17s 6d, goods supplied; Cooke, Howlison, and Co. Ltd. v. Raymond Bramwell Roberts, £9 12s 4d, repairs done and goods supplied; Kiwi Taxis v. N. R. Gubbins, £6 Is, amount owing for taxi hire. BREACH OF AWARD. Tho Inspector of Awards (Mr William Currie) proceeded against T. R* Winter (Mr C. J. L. White) claiming to recover the sum of £ls for breaches of the Otago Tea Rooms and Restaurant Employees’ Award. It was claimed that the defendant, being a party to and bound by the award, did, between February 1, 1934. and July 18, 1934, employ a girl as a worker in his dining room at South Dunedin with less than eighteen months’ experience when he had no senior worker in that department; that between the same dates he did employ a girl as a waitress and did fail to allow her a full day’s holiday of twenty-four consecutive hours, and also a half-holiday each week from the hour of 2 p.m.; and that he failed to keep a wages and time book as required by the award.

Mr White said that, the man lived on the premises and did-the whole of the cooking himself. He employed a girl primarily as a domestic, but she did do certain work in the dining room. From the broad and economic point of view she was mainly employed as a domestic, and if this work were not available she would probably be_ unemployed. She was constantly asking him, the defendant said, to let her work in the rooms, because slip wanted to qualify as a waitress, and the defendant thought he was quitb within his rights in allowing her to do this. The point about the case was that the girl was inexperienced and could not possibly be entitled to the full wages. She had every afternoon off in the week, and if she wanted any other time off she cci’Vl get it. The defendant had no intension of intending the inspector. The Magistrate said that the breaches could not be considered as any.'•'eg but serious. Taking the defendant’s financ’al position into account, ho would give, judgment for the plaintiff for £1 in each of the first two breaches and £2 in the third, a total of £4, together with costs (2s).