MARRIED WOMEN IN TEAROOMS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16572, 3 November 1921, Page 7

MARRIED WOMEN IN TEAROOMS.

CASE AT BERESFORD. UNION HAS ACTED LECALLY The case of a woman with several children and an invalid husband, who has been compelled to give up casual work at the Beresford tea rooms in accordance with the strict interpretation of the award was mentioned again yesterday in Parliament, when the suggestion was made that the secretary of the union had prevented women from obtaining such casual employment. The position appears to have I been "misunderstood to some extent in Parliament, and inquiries .were made in Christchurch to-day to get at all the facts. THE UNION’S POSITION. Mr R. A. Brooks, secretary of the union, said that action in the matter ; had been taken by the Labour Department, and it seemed as if the Minis- ! ter was shielding the Department rtt j the expense of the union. He had ! not approached the proprietors of the I Beresford since the beginning of July, jln the course of his visits a comj plaint was made to him about the employment of two women casually in the pantry and as charwomen. He saw Miss Broadway, who told him that the matter would be put in order. On July 18 he wrote to the Labour Department, Christchurch as follows: — “ I beg to report that the proprietors of tho Beresford tea room employ two charwomen, who in addition to scrubbing work in the pantry for two hours each evening from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and receive Is por hour. We cla-m that the said workers come within the scope of tho General Hands’ Clause, and in our opinion are entitled to the rate of pay as provided in the award. Kindly havo inquiries made and oblige. After writing this letter, Mr Brooks continued, he had not approached the Beresford in any way, and anything that had' been, done had been done by the Labour Department. On September 21 he wrote to the Labour Department : In further reference io our complaints against the Beresford Tearoom;, of July 18 we are of opinion that if the practice of employing Miss - and Mrs in the pantry is discontinued we should be justified in withdrawing the complaints. We shall be pleased to have your opinion in the matter. Work in the pantry. Mr Brooks remarked. came under the award, as it included washing dishes, toasting and so on. After doing this work, the women went into the tea rooms and scrubbed and polished. The rate for the work was 35s for a week of fortyeight hours, and there was no provision in the award for hourly rates. These women were working twelve hours a week for 12s. There wad a provision for midday waitresses for two and a half hours a day at 17s a week, and also for night waitresses from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. at 17s a week, but the only provision for casual work was 12s 6d a day for the first three days and thereafter at award rates. THE FIRST COMPLAINT. Cl In Qie first place we complained,” said Mr B ks. ”We think th© thing j is out of order, because the award says j it cannot be done. We have no juriH- I diction to side-step an award any more than the employer or the Labour Department. The Department took action, and that was the only reason why these women were put off. Now they are switching the matter on to my shoulders, although we have not even received any notice in the matter from the Department.” Mr Brooks added that the Beresford worked two shifts, i one from 8 a.m. to G p.m. and th© other from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. It was when the busy change over came at six o clock that the two women in question were put on. It was necessary to have the work in the pantry going smoothly. The two women were not superfluous, and there was no suggestion of charity in the matter. & The manager of the Beresford, who was invited to make a statement regarding the matter, said that in the first place they were originally inform- j ed bv the secretary of the union that j the women would have to be paid u ; full week's wages for the work they were doing. Subsequently the matter was handed over to the Labour Department, apparently by the union. The married woman concerned was a very good worker and the firm offered her more than the award rate if she could put in full time, but she could not do so owing to the fact that she had to spend a good deal of the day in her home. In the tearoom and restaurant assistants’ award provision is j made only for midday waitresses, and j none is made for the employment of j evening waitresses (6 p.m. to 7.30), as mentioned by Mr Brooks. This was tho cause of much discussion at the Conciliation Council meeting, when the award was applied for. “This controversy was not started by our firm," he said. “It was taken up by the fellow-employees, who felt very indignant at the fact that these two women could not continue under the old conditions. They made the matter public; and we knew nothing about it until we read it in the papers.” The incident indicated the need for a provision in the award for the employment of assistance at an hourly rate to meet the special conditions of a business that had to provide for rush hours. LABOUR DEPARTMENT'S ATTITUDE. Mr T. G. Feilder, officer in charge of the Labour Department at Christchurch. said that when the matter was brought under his notice the proprietors of the Beresford tea rooms were advised as to the requirements of th© award, and when references were first made to the matter in Parliament the whole of the facts were communicated to the head office.