WAITERS’ AWARD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16681, 13 March 1922, Page 7

WAITERS’ AWARD.

AN UNSUGGESSFUL CLAIM. _His Honor Mr Justice Adams. in the Supreme Court to-day. gave judgment. in Robert Joseph Chapman v. Rendezvous. Ltd.. claim for £22‘lou, balance of wages from May 9. 1919. to July 1921. Plain. tifi‘ is a salesman in a hardware llotlS'C. and added to his earnings by serving- as a waiter in the Rendezvous reatnurant between 9.30 pan. and 11.31) 1.411., wages to b? at the rate of 305 a week. His Honor said that. according to plain—tiff's contention. a restaurant. proprietor who employed a waiter during two hours only of each day was required by the award. not only to pay the wator for eight. hours' work per day. but also to supply him during the two hours with two substantial meals with meat. entree. fish or eggs, of good quality. sufficient in quantity and W 0“ cooked. as provided by clause 11 of the award. If that, was the true construction of the award. ofl‘ect must. be given to it, but. tho mere statement. of the proposition was enough to demonstrate its inherent improhubility. His Honor did not think that the scale oi wages in clause 5 of the award applied to the present.case. There was no doubt. that the case would huvo come under purnvcruph If) of clause 6, but for the limited definition given to (119 words " sing]? meal." which did not include supper. ('lauae 13‘ made proviFion for part—time waitresses; but. the award was silent. as to part-time waiters. He. therefor-v. "greed with thn contention of counsel for dofvndauts that. the omploymmu of plaintifl' did not comewithin the nroviaions of the award, and that plniutifl' was not entitled to any part of the sum claimed. Judgment would be for defendant. with costs on the lower scale}. His Honor certified for sci-ond rounsel at £5 ss. )lr f‘. S. Thomas apps-arm] for plaintiff and Mr R. Twynelnnn for defendant.