EMPLOYEE DISMISSED.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18651, 21 August 1930, Page 12

EMPLOYEE DISMISSED.

CLAIM IN MAGISTRATE'S COURT. As a result of the discharge of a barman-porter from the Carlton Hotel, a claim was instituted against the licensee, A. W. Brown, by the Inspector of Awards (Mr G. McKessar) for a penalty of £lO, on the grounds that the employee had been dismissed after six months’ employment, and had not received holidays commensurate with that period of service. Defendant, who was represented by Mr W. D. Campbell, made allegations against the integrity of the emploj Mr McKessar maintained that Brown had committed a breach of the New Zealand licensed hotelkeepers’ award, in that any worker who completed six months’ service was entitled to a proportionate amount of holidays. The employee in question had been engaged on November 4 of last year, and had been dismissed on June 6 of this year without the leave provided in the award. Leonard Halkett stated that he was employed by Brown on November 4, and was dismissed on June Bth. He agreed to take £3/10/- per week, not counting overtime or holidays. When he was dismissed he received no holidays, nor was he compensated with a holiday allowance. Mr Campbell: "I understand that the wages of a barman-porter, according to the aw’ard, are £2/11/- per week. You received 10/- boarding allowance, and an additional 9/-, which Brown will say was to cover holidays and overtime as agreed by you. You were required to work 48 hours per week, and the time-book gives your time as 44 hours per week.”

Witness did not answer the question, but maintained that no agreement had been entered into in regard to annual holidays.

Mr Campbell: “Can you give any reason why Brown gave you an additional 9/- per week?” Witness stated that he had been employed at the Dominion Hotel for seven years, and had received more than the award wage.

Mr Campbell: “I don’t want you to receive any publicity in the matter, and will give you a chance to write down why you were dismissed from Brown’s employ. Show it to the Magistrate and me.”

Witness then wrote down an answer to the question, and handed the paper over.

Mr Campbell: “I have given you a chance and you have not answered the question truthfully. Now you will have to take the consequences. Mr Brown will say that he discharged you for robbing the till.” Witness: "There was no reason at all. Mr and Mrs Brown botn told me that they were going to do without a barman-porter.” Alfred Walter Brown, licensee of the hotel, said that the award prescribed for the payment of a barman-porter at the rate of £2/11/- per week. Halkett had worked on several holidays and had not claimed overtime, as the wages book would show. "I don’t want the Press to take any notice of what I am going to say. Will that be all right, Your Worship?” he asked Mr Campbell: “Never mind about the Press.”

Witness: “Well I caught him lifting a coin from the till." Witness stated that he kept Halkett in his employment for seven or eight days until he engaged another man.

Mr McKessar: “You have made an accusation against this man, and yet you kept him in your employment for another week?”—“l had to. I couldn’t do the scrubbing myself.” “You knew he was at the Dominion for eight years, and must have been satisfactory?”—“Not on the way he had to leave.”

Under further questioning by Mr McKessar, witness maintained that he had given Halkett one week’s notice The Magistrate stated that apparently the licensee had treated the employee fairly well as far as wages were concerned, but there was no provision in the award whereby an employer could enter into an agreement with an employee in the way in which Brown had done. There was some argument concerning the sacking of Halkett, but he was not concerned with that. It seemed strange, however, that Halkett did not sue for wages in lieu of notice. “I am not deciding whether Brown was justified in dismissing Halkett as he did.” Judgment would be entered for plaintiff for 10/-, with witness’s expenses for Halkett amount* ifig to l/ t