WORK IN HOTEL KITCHEN

Southland Times, Issue 23498, 3 May 1938, Page 9

WORK IN HOTEL KITCHEN

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD LABOUR DEPARTMENT NON-SUITED A penalty of £lO was sought by the inspector of awards (Mr H. M. Hopper) against Mrs Annie Mitchell, formerly occupier of the Club Hotel, Invercargill, in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr R. C. Abernethy S.M. yesterday for a breach of the Hotel Workers’ Award. Mr J. C. Prain appeared for the defendant. After hearing the evidence the Magistrate non-suited the plaintiff. Mr Hopper said the defendant, Mrs Mitchell, had been the occupier for a number of years of the Club Hotel, Invercargill, and was now the licensee of the Empire Hotel, Dunedin. For several years it had been the custom for the kitchen at the Club Hotel to be regarded as a two-handed kitchen, but he would bring evidence to show that a third person was employed in the kitchen.

Dorothy De Laney, vice-president of the Hotel Workers’ Union, said she had been employed as cook at the Club Hotel for about four years. There was also an assistant cook. She remembered a Miss Clode who was engaged as a general hand. Miss Clode was in the kitchen two hours every morning except Sunday, and she always relieved the witness on her day off. The witness received wages as a first cook in a two-handed kitchen. To Mr Prain: She did not know that a general going into the kitchen would raise the rating of the kitchen; nor did she know that a general was not supposed to work in the kitchen to prepare food. KITCHEN STAFF Annie Mitchell, licensee of the Empire Hotel, Dunedin, said she was licensee of the Club Hotel in Invercargill until June 30, 1937. Miss De Laney had been first cook. for about four years, a girl named Eunice Lemond had started with her as a general in September 1936. She stayed there until May 9 when she left because of illness. In her place the witness engaged a girl called Rose Clode who started on May 10 and remained till the witness left. She . told Miss Lemond to work in the kitchen from 7.30 till 9 o’clock each morning. The witness was then told that a general was not allowed to work in the preparation of food, and she told Miss Lemond not to do this kind of work. From October, when that incident occurred, until she left, the witness had had no complaints about Miss Lemond doing that kind of work. The witness always left the direction of the kitchen work to the head cook. She had no complaint while Miss Clode was there.

To the Magistrate: She did not suspect at the time that the fact that Miss Lemond was peeling potatoes made the kitchen a three-handed one. The witness'told Miss De Laney that if there was anything not right about the kitchen she was to tell her. Eunice Elizabeth Lemond said that when she started she was told that her duties were to pour out teas and coffees, keep tile benches tidy and set breakfast trays. After that she was to give the maids some assistance and peel potatoes. After about a month she was told to stop peeling potatoes. She never prepared vegetables after she was told to stop. Rosina Alice Mary Clode said she started as a general with Mrs Mitchell on May 10 and stayed there till Mrs Mitchell left. On Fridays the witness relieved the second cook at night and on Monday she relieved one of the cooks till one o’clock. The witness was instructed to have nothing to do with the preparation of food. The Magistrate said he was satisfied that Mrs Mitchell had informed Miss Lemond she was not to prepare potatoes because of the question of a threehanded kitchen. He was satisfied, too, that Miss Lemond stopped that work. He thought Mrs Mitchell’s evidence as to Miss Clode was to be accepted—that she was told she was not to do anything in the kitchen in the preparation of food. It appeared that Miss Clode was told to do potatoes not by Miss De Laney but by the second cook. There had been a breach of the award, and there was no question that Miss Clode did do that work, but taking the circumstances into consideration, and the fact that the vice-presi-dent of the union happened to be in the same hotel, it was only fair and proper to say that the breach was of a trivial nature, or at least excusable. If there were any signs of the breach having been committed with any real knowledge, the position would be entirely different.