BREACHES OF AWARDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17696, 3 February 1921, Page 6

BREACHES OF AWARDS.

MEALS FOR WAITRESSES.

QUESTION OF VEGETABLE.

Two claims for penalties for breaches of awards were heard by Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday.

A claim for a penalty of £10 on the ground that he had failed to supply his assistants with two substantial meals per working day, or 2s in lieu thereof, as provided by the Tea and Luncheon Rooms and Oyster Saloon Employees' Award, was made by the Inspector of Awards, Mr. J. Hollows, against S. T. Kiggs (Mr. McLiver), tearoom proprietor.

The inspector stated that when he visited defendant's premises, where there were several employees, in November last, he found no allowance had been made for meals. The employees had the option of having tea, cocoa, pies, scones, etc., but no vegetables. Subsequently defendant said he was not a party to the award, and if witness wished he could take the case to Court.

Defendant, who is nearly 80 yeats of age, said the girls had four meals a day, the food including pies, scones, ham, sausages, and mashed potatoes. If they did not have the meals it was their fault. The inspector said the question of meals had been a bone of contention for years, and a " substantial meal" had recently been defined by the Arbitration Court. Counsel for defendant said one vege-. table, potatoes, had been included, as required by the award. The magistrate said the award meant that a vegetable, such as carrots or cabbage, should be included in the meal, together with meat. Dietetieallv, potatoes were not a vegetable. Defendant was fined £1 and costs.

EMPLOYMENT OF NON-UNIONISTS. Failure to notify the secretary of the union of the employment of nonunionists, as required by the award, was the ground for a claim" foF a penalty of £10 made by the Auckland Plasterers' Union (Mr. A. E. Skelton) against Leman Brothers, plasterers. The case was not defended. The evidence showed that defendants had employed two non-union plasterers, and had not notified the secretary of the union within three days as required by the award. The two men had been employed for about two months. Defendants had been in business for a considerable period. A fine of £2 and costs was imposed.