HOTEL EMPLOYEES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIX, Issue 14683, 14 May 1908, Page 5

HOTEL EMPLOYEES.

A QUESTION OF HOLIDAYS. At the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston, the Inspector of Factories (Mr. Cassidy) appealed against the decision of Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., in dismissing an information against Maurice Lyons (Mr Alpers), licensee of the United Service Hotel, for failing to give an employee, a night-porter, a weekly half-holiday. Mr Cassidy said that the man worked daily from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. The Magistrate had followed the decision of Mr Riddel], S.M. The case was brought under Section 20 of the Shops and Offices Act, 1904, amended by Section 3 of the Act of 1907. Mr Riddell said the holiday must start from 2 p.m. in the afternoon, and as the night porter was employed at night that provision could not affect him. His Honor said the section only prohibited work between 2 p.m. and midnight. The man could have a holiday from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. any day he liked, and the only point was that on one day in the week, if he came under the section, he should not start work till midnight. Mr Cassidy said that he would accept that view of the matter. The Magistrate's decision had the effect of excluding that class of employee from any benefit at all under the clause. Mr Alpers said he could not argue on Jlr Riddell'" s judgment. Mr Bishop had said he thought the Labour Department should have appealed was- a highly technical point. If the employee in question were giv%n the two hours which the Labour Department contended should be given to him. they fell at such a time of night that ho would either havo to air his beds outside the street door, or be locked in his own room by the lessee. The Wellington Magistrate had taken the viewthat in order to havo a holiday from '2 p.m. the man must be at work at that hour to get it In saving judgment his Honor said that the words of the section were clear —" All assistants employed in any hotel shall have a holiday from 2 p.m. on some working day in each week." That appeared to him to mean that every assistant in every hotel should have one afternoon in each week during which he was free from employment from 2 p.m. for the rest of that day. If the porter was an assistant he was entitled to that, and it was clear he had not got it. He had got from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m every working day of the week, but there was one working day in each week on which the Act was not complied with. ( The only question that remained was whether the man was an assistant, and he could see no reason why he should not be called an assistant. There was nothing to show that the man would have to he at work at 2 p.m. in order to get a holiday. Althought the point at issue was a trifling one, and there was no real hardship on the man, the Act, as it stood, must be complied with. In order to sustain his judgment in the lower Court the Magistrate was obliged to say that the half-holiday could not he applied to the porter because he was not at work at 2 p.m., but that construction of the clause might lead to mischief. The man wavS employed for two hours contrary to the statute, and it was no use putting a strained meaning on the words of the clause. He would allow the appeal, with costs, £5 ss, against the respondent.