RUSH OF WORK

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXV, Issue 12912, 14 July 1936, Page 2

RUSH OF WORK

LADIES’ HAIR DRESSING SA LON ASSISTANTS. EMPLOYED OVER NINE HOURS A DAY. Duo to exceptional circumstances two assistants employed by Lorna Nicholson, ladies’ hairdresser, were worked longer than the prescribed hours. As a.result Miss Nicholson was charged at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr. B. L. Walton, S.M. with on Juno 8 working two assistants more than nine hours a day and with working such assistants in excess of five hours without an interval for a meal. Air. J. R. Hanlon, Labor Inspector, who prosecuted, said that the defendant was the occupier of a ladies’ hairdressing salon, and on the day in question had such a rush of customers that she could not cope w'ith the work. The two assitsants should have finished work at 6 o’clock but they were there until 7.40 p.m. They did not go without their meals altogether, as the defendants provided them with light refreshments, tea and cakes. The defendant had previously boon warned. Air. L. T. Burnard, who appeared for defendant, said the chief assitsant had been taken ill and had boon ordered to Wellington. Quite a number of appointments had been made for the day she left and for the following day and theso could not bo cancelled. Clients had arranged to have their hair done for special occasions. As there . was no assistant to replace' the one who was ill the other two had to do additional work. Counsel contended that, tho two informations were really the same. The assistants always had morning and afternoon tea supplied to them, and that had also been done on the date in question. They had therefore had some refreshment within tinfive hours but owing to the rush had had tea.in the shop. The whole affair arose out of exceptional circumstances. All-. Hanlon said he had omitted r-o mention the fact that the chief assistant had boon taken ill. That was quite true. He contended that two offences had been committed and quoted : n authority to bear out his contention. Defendant was fined 10s arid 13s costs on each charge.