REFRESHMENT ROOM EMPLOYEES.

NZ Truth, Issue 56, 14 July 1906, Page 4

REFRESHMENT ROOM EMPLOYEES.

AN IMPORTANT TEST CASE.

Judgment Reserved.

In View of the proposed Union of Hotel and Restuarant employees, the prosecution, of a refreshment room keeper named Jonathan Jones, at 'the Wellington Police Court on Friday week is of considerable interest. Jones was charged at the instance of an inspector under the Shops and Offices Act, 1904, with having during the' week ending June 30th,. 1906, unlawfully, employed m the business of a- dining room m Uixon-street,* two shop assistants named Frederick Richards and Frank Ross, after one o'clock m the afternoon of one working day. Mr .Findlay appeared for the prosecution and Mr Levi for the defence. The fact that the employees had not received a weekly halHioliday was not denied by Jones, but Mr Levi raised : the following points (1) Tha.t section 3 of the Amending Act 1905 expressly, fixed the hours of refreshment room keepers at .not: later than 11.45 p'.m, on every evening q£. the week, and impliqdly. repealed \ the provisions of giving a ' halftio&d&f- iri^th^c't of 1904: (2) That the?; # revisions *• of both Acts are expressly - n,^acle subject to the awards of t»e' Arbitration Court and that the award applicable m this case is inconsistent with a half-holiday being: given.- (-3) That a refreshment room-is not a "shop" Within the meaning of .the* Act. In arguink these points Mr Levi contended' -that the position was such: tVuvt the award excepted refreshment :•• rooms. A refreshment room was •'•■■•- .>■'•.. NOT BOUND TO CLOSE on the afternoon pi any' day. when employees were to be given a holiday. Though power was given, .to .'keep open till 11.3,5 : : p.m. it. did? not follow that Jones '{had kept his; ; employees m" the shop.' Sonjetimes; they h<ad v a couple of : houks off. m the' afternoon and knocked rpft about 7 P.m. /He also pointed out that refreshment rooms were not; m the scheduled list of shops required to srive a weekly half-holida- . ; f . . . : . ' Mr Findlay ; :said the first point raised was the oh'lv one worth con^ sidering. By statute the employees of refreshment shops were entitled to a half-holiday,, but 'no day was specified. He submitted that the employees' were entitled to a. Iholiday' on a. day arranged between employer and employee and the empjlover m working the men after pne . o'clock on that day , was guilty pr an' offence. Dr. McArthur, S.Mi, who presided, reserved iudgment; ; :' . ■{-■.■'. Yesterday (FridayVliDr. McArthur, S M., delivered his* reserved judgment., m the above case. He yield that assistants m dining-rodnis, refresh-' ment-rooms and restuarants were entitled to one half-holmay per week after one o'clock (m lone working day. He considered-^, thafi, the information .was sustained and ordered Jones to pay a fine of £2 and costs amounting to £2 13s. |