Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BARMAIDS' POSITIONS.

APPEAL COURT DECISION.

EFFECT IN AUCKLAND.

WOMEN LOSE EMPLOYMENT.

That the decision of the Court of Appeal, delivered on Monday in tho licensing case Harris v. Hutton, will affect a large proportion of the licensed hotels of the Dominion was the opinion expressed by a number of hotelkeopers who were interviewed by a Herald reporter yesterday. The nature of the decision is easily explained. The Licensing Amendment Act of 1910 contained this provision:—" After June 1, 1911, save as provided in this section, no female shall be employed in any oapacity, or permitted to serve in' any capacity, in or about the bar of any licensed premises at any time while the bar is open for tho sale of liquor." Women then employed as barmaids were registered, and could continue to act in that capacity, but no other female might serve in a bar. The loose construction of this amending Act left its meaning in doubt in sevoral directions, and there were different interpretations of the word " bar" in the section quoted. A Licensing Amendment Act, passed in 1912, attempted to remedy the trouble by embodying a clause practically similar to that quoted, but with the words "or private bar" added. This, however, was rendered ineffective owing to the absence of a definition of the term " private bar." The word " bar," defined as " a barroom opening directly on to a public highway," was the only word that concerned licensees, and they continued to employ unregistered barmaids in their "private bars"—or rooms which did not open on to the street. Only barmaids who were registered wore employed in public bars. Tho licensees' interpretation of "bar" was tested in several cases brought boforo magistrates, but no authoritative pronouncement was obtained, and finally a case, in which a Gisborne magistrate fined a licensee- Is for employing an unregistered barmaid in a "private bar," was carried to tho Court of Appeal. The Court was unanimously of the opinion that tho word "bar" meant either a "public bar" or "private bar," and dismissed the appeal accordingly. This means that, in future, only registered barmaids may be employed in hotel bars of any description.

Hotel licensees estimated yesterday that in Auckland between 30 and 40 girk, some now engaged permanently, and a few as relieving barmaids, would lose their employment as a result of the Appeal Court decision. A number of hotels Waverley and fie Star, for example, where only barmen and registered barmaids are employed—would not bo affected; but in many from one to five or six females who had not been registered were employed in the bars, and their services would have to bo dispensed •with. "It is an injustice that, owing to the loose wording of the amending Act leading to a misinterpretation, a considerable number of young women, who have commenced work as barmaids since the 1910 Act was passed, must now lose {heir, employment," said a member of the Licensed victuallers' Association yesterday. " I understand that an effort is to be made to remedy this by having inserted in the Licensing Bill now before Parliament—providing the measure is not' killed '—a provision allowing all barmaids who have boen constantly employed as such for a certain time prior to the Appeal Court decision, and who are unregistered, to be added to tho list of registered barmaids. This proposal may be open to some criticism, but, if given effect to, it would certainly render justico to a large number of young women, who, through no fault of their own, are now about to lose their engagements."

The- Auckland Licensed Victuallers' Association met yesterday afternoon to consider the new position arising out of the Appeal Court decision, and to decide whether or not to carry the matter on to tho Privy Council. The latter proposal, it is understood, is strongly supported. The association resolved that it could do nothing until it was made acquainted with tho full terms of the Appeal Court judgment, and the meeting was adjourned for a day or two, until such time as the judgment is available.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19140722.2.96

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15667, 22 July 1914, Page 11

Word Count
679

BARMAIDS' POSITIONS. New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15667, 22 July 1914, Page 11

BARMAIDS' POSITIONS. New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15667, 22 July 1914, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert