WAGES DURING THE EPIDEMIC.

Otago Witness, Issue 3400, 14 May 1919, Page 49

WAGES DURING THE EPIDEMIC.

HOTELKEEPER'S BREACH OF AWARD. Judgment was given by Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court on the Bth in the case: of the Inspector 'of Awards v. D. Young, licensee of the Excelsior Hotel. In this case the Inspector of Awards claimed penalties against de-. fondant for five breaches of the Dunedin hotelkeepers' award, in that he failed to pay two barmen and three barmaids their wages between dates in November and December last, the period during which the premises were closed owing to the influenza epidemic through a proclamation of the District Health Officer. By virtue of this proclamation neither could Mr Young employ these servants nor could the servants perform their part. According to the award the wages were paid weekly, and the engagement was to terminate, if terminated at aS, by 48 hours' notice. In each of these cases the engagement remained. It was not terminated by notice as provided by the award, and -earth of the servants was required to come back and resume duty when called upon, which was on or about December 4. This they did. Both the employer and the employees, but for this emergency that arose, were willing and ready to perform their respective parts of the contract. Mr Lang, for the defendant, contended that it would have been illegal for Mr Young to have employed them in that period, and that it would have been illegal for these servants to have worked in that period. In other words, the embargo put upon the hotels made it impossible for either party to perform their part of the contract although ready and willing to do' so. He contended, therefore, that during this period they could not recover their wages, and that there was no breach of the award. He (the magistrate) had looked carefully into the question, and had had the opportunity of reading the judgment of Mr Riddell, the magistrate in Wellington, who decided a similar case there not long ago. In that case counsel for the (plaintiff submitted that the compulsory closing relating to business premises in cases of epidemic did not in itself in any manner take away or affect the obligation of employers to pay wages to employees during such times. So long as the employee was not guilty of misconduct he was entitled to payment until his enfagement had been lawfully terminated y the requisite notice. It made no difference that by reason of some emergency the employee had been prevented from aotually working. Mr Riddell agreed with this argument, and was satisfied to adopt jt as a correct statement of the law. He held that a breach of the award had been committed, and gave judgment for plaintiff. In the present case before him Mr Widdowson said the evidence showed that ibere was no waiver. The employees resumed work after the date mentioned, and he quite agreed with the judgment delivered by Mr Riddell. It did not call for any further remark from him except to say that the emergency concerned was similar case of illness or the closing of a toryj and the employee, unless guilty Of misconduct, which was not the case here, was entitled to his or her wages ltmtil the engagement was properly terminated as provided by the award. Judgment would be for the plaintiff. He understood the Wages had not been paid. 13* therefore

proposed to adjourn the case to enable the wages to be paid, and then to fix the penalty. If the wages were paid he. might say the penalty would be practically nominal. The case was adjourned till Tuesday next.