A QUESTION OF CAPACITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14685, 19 November 1909, Page 7

A QUESTION OF CAPACITY

UNION AND NON-UNION WAITRESSES. A PROSECUTION THAT FAILED. A case- wherein, of two waitresses awaiting employment, one was taken and the other left, was ventilated before Mi 11. V. Widdowson at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The Inspector of Awards so-light tc recover from Robert Spray, restaurant keeper, £10 a s a oenalty for a breach of the Otngo Hotel, Restaurant and Boardingliouse Employees' Award. Tho claim set forth that defendant had on October 16 employed a. waitress, Isabella Adams, who was not a member of tho union, when Annie Hiscokc and Ncllio UobcrUoii, members ->f die union, were equally qualified to do die particular work required to bo done, mid were willing anil ready to undertake it. Mr Hollows conducted the prosecution, and Mr A 0 'laidon appeared for tho defence. In opening the case Mr Hollows stated iliat tlie fact? wero that on October 6 Mr Spivi.V engaged a. Miss Isabella. Adams a non-unionist, as a waitress, at a time when thero were two unionist waitresses out of employment. The department claimed .hat tho two unionist waitresses, who were not employed, were equally com'latent with the . non-unionist who was employed. Ho proposed to lake only one of these eases. Ho contended that in cases of this description it was necessary for employers to look at the employment book. Robert Brceii, secretary .f the Hotel iimployeji' Association, staled I hat Isabella Adams had joined the union a week ago. At the time sho was engaged by defendant she was not in iho union. Tho union waitress who had not been employed was proficient in' the various blanches of her profession. Ho was certain of lhat, Mr 1-Ianlon: Very well; then you can 101 lus whether she was housemaid or waitress, or both, when she was employed at tho Brighton Hotel. Witness: Surely you don't cxiiect mo to answer sucb a question as that? Mr Hanlon: It's not a case of "expecting," you know, Mr Brccn; the law provides that if you make statements you must prove them. 1 want to know" if you can verify the entries in ibis employment book of yours. Mr Broen: Well, if you put that consi ruction— Mr Hanlon: Never mind the construction; can you verify this statement?—v No! I ha-vo merely followed the tutittl procedure. I have no susp.x-.iou of being in any way misled. Mr Hanlon: Can you ioll us in what tiiecilic capacity sho was employed at a hotel ill Stafford etrcct?-Mr Breen could not. Join Packer, manager of "Frascati's," gave evidence as io the competence of the uuionis- waitress. She had worked for him foi a day, Ihe occasion being an outing of the Motor Association. Air Hanlon: What did you have? Champagiu, on ice, shandygaff in buckets, or what? Witness: Oh no, nothing like that. We iiad ten and sandwiches. Mr Hanlon: Oh! Tea and sandwiches! Do you mean to tell tho Court that it

requires mi necoinplished iraitress lo servo tea and sandwiches at a motor scramble? Witncfs: Pardon me, it was not ;v sei amble. "Well," remarked Mr Ilnnlon, "it usually is a scramble, if one is not going to fjc without, a eandwich."—(Laughter.) Other evidence having been given, Mr llanlon addressed the court. Ho said this prosecution must fail on the face of it. lie wished to take no advantage of technicalities, but his client wished his position clearly defined, lie declared that ihis girl was, without exception, the bo?t waitress that eould ha got in Uunedin. lie was not r-aying the other girls were not efficient. Tho award stated that preference should be given to unionists, nrovidod they were ctjuully as competent as non-unionist applicants. The Magistiate: As far as I can sec. there is no evidence before the court that this non-unionist girl had-beon engaged even. ■ MHlnnlon: That is Ihe fault of the pro sedition. In order tc compel pjople to join tho union, the department, has lind this clause inserted, but it lies with the depart •ncnt to show the court that, the unionists who had been left unemployed were equally competent ttilh tlie others. Now, what evidence in this ilirectior has been placed before the court? It was only right that the award should bo so couched; but the intention of the award was that the inein hers of the union must at least be'equally competent. Tre plaintiff had not even at tempted lo prove this point. The fact of the union's waitress being proficient did not, under the circumstances, mean' anything at all. His client required this girl for pnrticula, work at a (articular lab!, where there was a rish. Ho had selected Miss Adams ;,s being most suitable for this special purpo-re in piefcrcnoc lo another "in, who though n„ doubt conqiotent, was not so prolk-ietit as Miss Adams for the im-pose required. Further, it was evident mat tlie olh.-ers of tho department had not wpt tie employment book, as the act required it S l 10[1 i (1 be kept. Under the oireumsUnces, he (lk | „ ot admil „ ie cng -icnt-hc d,d not admit anything. Thew vvas another point