A LEGAL LABYRINTH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14568, 3 January 1911, Page 3

A LEGAL LABYRINTH.

HOTEL AWARDS AND ACTS.

A CONFUSING SITUATION.

Thk new provisions of the Licensing Act are not the only worry hotelkeepers have at the present time. The amendments to the Shops and Offices Act passed last session are also exercising them, and are said by some to bo a veritable legislative labyrinth. The confusion is increased by the fact that some hotels are working under an award, others under the Shops and Offices Act, and all are bound by the Licensing Act.

In ah interview yesterday Mr. J. S. Palmer, president of the Licenced Victuallers' Association, said that in the Shops and Offices Act. of 1908, with its amendments of 1910, there was a. strong element of inconsistency. In the Act of 1908 there were some 50 sections, very few of which affected the licensee's position. The amending Act changed the position considerably, placing some hotels under its operations and exempting others to a greater or less extent, according to the Arbitration Court awards they might be under. The sections that did affect the hotel licensee wore in many respects inconsistent and conflicting in character. For example, section 3 of the amending Act extended and applied the definitions of " shop" and " shop assistant" contained in section 2 of the principal Act to hotels and restaurants. That section defined a " shop assistant'' as meaning " any person {whether a member of ( the occupier's family or not)' who is employed by the occupier of a shop in or about the business of the shop," etc. Sub-section 6 of section 5 of the amending Act was in evident conflict with this, as it declared that "neither the wife nor the children of the occupier shall be deemed to bo assistants within the meaning of the Act." Which applied asked Mr. Palmer. Section 5, with its extension of such definitions to members of the occupier's family as defined! in the principal Act, or the exemption of such members?.

The inconsistencies of the amending Act might be further illustrated by the provisions of sections 5 and 8, continued Mr. Palmer. The former dealt with the hours during which an assistant might be employed in or about an hotel or restaurant or its business. Section 5 emphatically prohibited his employment for more than 10 hours in any one day (vide clause c). Another clause (e) apparently permitted of a certain liberty of action in regard to the half-holiday, for it read :— "A.a assistant shall not be employed in or about an Lotel or restaurant. ... at any time after two o'clock on the afternoon of such working day in each week as the occupier in the _case of each assistant thinks fit." That, it seemed, was intended to permit of an arrangement being come to between the employer and the assistants. But section 8, after providing that the occupier of an hotel might "with the previous consent of the inspector of factories for the district," require all or any of his assistants to work on the day *of the halfholiday, reads : (b) "That every assistant who works., as required, on the half-holi-day, shall be given a 'whole day's holiday during the week immediately succeeding the week on which the half-holiday was not allowed." Clause (c) of the same section restricted the power to work assistants on the half-holidays to six times in any one year, and to once in any period of two months of any one year. Section 2 provided 'a partial remedy for tins by exempting certain districts from its operation. It read : "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, any award of the Court of Arbitration relating to hotels or restaurants in force on the passing of this Act shall continue in force for the period for which it was made as if this Act had not been passed." This meant that all hotels in the Auckland, Botorua, Wellington, Christchnrch, and Dunedin districts would be working under one set of conditions, and remain largely exempt, while all the others would be compelled to observe the conditions imposed by the Shops and Offices Act. In the matter of working hours tho awards provided for a maximum of 65 hours per week. The Shops and Offices Act limited the maximum hours to 62 in the case of males whose age exceeds 16 years, and of 58 hours in all other cases, and these were subject to further restrictions, as he had already pointed out, Mr. Palmer said he could not see how hotelkeepers who were not under awards, were to comply with the law in the matter of working hours and of ■ the half-holiday, unless they closed their Itouscs altogether on the statutory half-holiday, and declined to serve meals or refreshments to their guests and the public. The in this direction would make it very harassing and difficult in certain instances for licensees to comply with the law, without seriously inconveniencing the travelling public It might bo said, and with some degree of truth, that the conditions relating to the employment of labour in hotels throughout the Dominion were identical. In theory, that might be so; in practice, it was otherwise. In isolated districts*.where .was not always easy to obtain the required efficient labour, the licensee was compelled to employ such labour as might be available, and do his best to meet the circumstances of his trade. In doing so, he was liable to be brought into conflict with the law. Personally, he could not understand why the conditions should bo made so variable, nor why, with such extensive and restrictive' licensing legislation, ' it should be considered necessary to bring hotelkeepers under the Shops and Offices Act. Either the awards that were in operation were right, and should be general in their application, or they were wrong, and should be ended. If they were right, then there was no reason why such further restrictions as were contained in the Shops and Offices Act should bo imposed upon hotelkeepers, more especially as, in certain instances, the awards were the result of agreements arrived at by tho employers in conference with their employees. Mr. Palmer also suggested that for any amendments of licensing legislation one would naturally look to an amending Licensing Act. Amendments of the licensing law were made by separate Act of Parliament last year, yet section 10 of tho Shops and Offices Act amended the Licensing Act of 1908 in an important particular, by removing the restriction against the employment of a female other than the wife or daughter of a licensee in tho bar of any licensed house for more than 10 hours'in each day of 24 hours, and making the section read that she must not be employed in the bar of any licensed house after the hour of 11 at night. Generally, Mr. Palmer expressed the opinion that, in a large number of cases, where hotels were compelled to comply with the Shops and Offices Act, considerable difficulty would be experienced in reconciling the law under that Act with the obligations imposed upon the licensee by the Licensing Act, the provisions of which were both restrictive and stringent. Even under the awards the position was not without its embarrassments, but a certain regard was paid by them to local conditions and circumstances that was not apparent in the Shops and Offices Act.