TOBACCO SALES AT HOTEL

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 September 1940, Page 5

TOBACCO SALES AT HOTEL

UNION’S CLAIM UPHELD. [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CHRISTCHURCH, September 19. Whether a cigarette-stall in the lounge of a hotel is a “tobacconist’s shop” and whether the hotel employee who does most of her 'work there is technically a “shop assistant” are arguments discussed in the judgment of Mr. F. F. Reid, S.M., on the case where the New Zealand Federated Hotel and Restaurant Employees’ Union alleged that Ernest Boulton, proprietor of the United Service Hotel, had employed Joan Lee without paying the wages to which she was entitled. Miss Lee was given judgment for £42/17/4, made up of wages and overtime which, the Magistrate held, she was entitled to have received over 43 weeks. He held that the circumstances did not call for substantial penalties on the union’s claims. The question had never been raised until after the worker left, and it had been admitted that she was treated with the utmost generosity throughout the term of her employment, he said.

The union (represented by Mr. K. G. Archer) alleged that Miss Lee had worked a 44g-hour week and was paid as if she were outside the scope of the Licensed Hotel Employees’ Award, under which she would be entitled as a general hand to receive £2/5/6 and work on a ' 40-hour week. ..... ' “The duties constituting the substantial part of her employment' were as follow (the judgment said): In the lounge of this hotel there is what is an uncommon feature in New Zealand hotels, a stall where cigarettes, tobacco, and matches are sold to guests. This stall was referred to from time to time during the hearing as a ‘shop,’ but I think ‘stall’ is a more appropriate description. The worker was in charge of this stall, and was responsible for the sale of cigarettes, etc., to the hotel ' guests. For the defence, Mr. C. S. Thomas had contended that the stall was a “shop” within the meaning of the Shops and Offices Act, and that Miss Lee’s conditions of work were governed by that act and not the award. “It is .true that a hotel is a ‘shop’ and every worker in a hotel is a ‘shop assistant’ under that act, but it would be absurd to contend that every hotel worker is therefore outside the scope of the award,” said the Magistrate. He held that the sale of tobacco and cigarettes was incidental to’the main business and not a separate business. “I find that the defendant does not carry on the business of a tobacconist any more than he carries on the business of a retailer of soft drinks.” a In addition to the judgment given to Miss Lee, three penalties of. £1 each were imposed on the union’s claims.