A RULING WANTED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLI, Issue 20441, 11 June 1936, Page 5

A RULING WANTED

HOTEL COUNTER LUNCHES WHO SHOULD PREPARE THEM? Is it in accord with the terms of the Licensed Hotel Emplyoees’ Award for a pantrymaid to prepare counter lunches or is that the work of the kitchen staff? This point was argued in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Emily Frances O’Leary, licensee of the Empire Hotel, was proceeded against by the Inspector of Awards (Mr G. McKessar) for employing Mona Rooney as a kitchen hand and failing to pay her the wages prescribed by the award. Alternatively, Mr McKessar alleged that the girl had been employed as a general hand and had not been paid award rates. A penalty of £lO was claimed for the breach. The Magistrate (Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.), reserved his decision and intimated that he would refer the question to the Arbitration Court for a ruling. In evidence, Mona Rooney said she was a pantry maid, part of her duties being to prepare counter lunches in the morning for the bar. In addition she washed up cups, saucers, small plates and the silver used in the kitchen, but did none of the recognised kitchen work. Mr McKessar pointed out that the award did not permit pantry maids to do any work in connection with the kitchen. Tire preparation of counter lunches, he contended, was kitchen work. Witness was really a general hand, and as such was entitled to receive 38/- a week instead of 30/-. “Stupid and Pinpricking” After studying the award for some time, Mr Inglis said the duties of a pantry maid were not defined. What was she supposed to do? “It is such a stupid and pinpricking thing that I am surprised at the Department bringing it up in this way," said Mr Inglis, submitting that the preparation of lunches was not kitchen work. At the Magistrate’s request, witness described the work entailed in preparing the lunches, cutting sandwiches and preparing cheese and meat for them. Mr McKessar contended that prepar- • mg the meat for sandwiches was carving. which was kitchen work. “That’s not carving. That’s only cutting up meat,” retorted Mr Inglis. Witness added that the lunches sometimes contained boiled eggs. The Magistrate: Do you boil the eggs?

Witness replied that until recently she had, but had been told that she was not allowed to, so the eggs were boiled for her and handed to her cold. The Magistrate said the whole thing was trivial. The point was whether a pantry njaid should prepare the counter lunches, and he proposed to submit it to the Arbitration Court for a ruling. They framed the awards and should know the intent of them.

“My decisions, generally speaking, are not accepted by the head office of the Labour Department unless they coincide with their view,” commented the Magistrate. “If I give a decision and it is contrary to their view they • ''l go straight to the Arbitration Court on appeal. It all comes to the same thing, so I will go straight to the Arbitration Court myself,” he said, intimating that he would reserve his decision.