BREACH OF AWARD

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19504, 3 February 1926, Page 2

BREACH OF AWARD

RESTAURANT-KEEPER FINED £2O KEEPING WAITRESSES AFTER HOURS ARE GIRLS TOO LOQUACIOUS? At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, Inspector E. W. F. Gohns proceeded agtainst Murray Buxs., proprietors of the Royale Willows, for the sum of £5O as a penalty for a breach of the Tearooms and Restaurant Employers’ Award. The information set out that the defendants on November 2.1, 1925, employ, ed Hazel Stoneman, Nellie Lett, Marion Splitt, Vcr*a Shapleski, Nona Whelan, R. Whelan, A. Streeter, Ruby Edney and Annie Osborne (waitresses) and P. Halkett, dispenser, after 10.30 p.m., contrary to Clause I. of the Award. The inspector explained that the defendants employed in their restaurant in the Avenue a large number of v.t.-t--resses and other workers. On November 21 last he passed the restaurant at 10.30 o’clock and found nearly every chair in the establishment occupied and the assistants still working. On returning again at 10.45 the doors were still open, fresh customers were going into the restaurant and the assistants were working. At 11 o'clock six girls were being employed. When the proprietor was approached concerning the matter, he explained that the. pictures were late in coming out, while an unusual rush had been caused by two other attractions in the city. The defendants had been warned several times and had previously been fined for breaches of the award. The inspector added that when he saw Mr Murray subsequently, the latter remarked that the ptace was very busy, and he had no alternative but to serve the customers. The award, the inspector pointed out, made provision for the employment of waiters, and if these people desired to serve after 10.30 o’clock then it was their duty to employ waiters. In larger centres waiters were employed to relieve the girls at 10 o’clock. The award also provided for the employment of dasuals. The Department looked upon the matter as serious, as over and over again it had been explained to Mr Murray Ahat complaints had been received relative to his keeping open late. The practice h'ad continued even since the present claim had been issued. Mr Tustin, representing the defendants, explained that the trouble was that his clients experienced difficulty in getting girls off the premises after they had ceased work. They persisted in talking in the dressing room, and only the previous night Mr Murray had had ’a row with his staff because they would not get out.

Mr J. 8. Barton, S.M.: Is that the sort of thing that the Inspector is complaining of? Inspector Gohns replied in the negative. Actual serving was the offence, and he quoted Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve as being bad examples of the offence.

Continuing, Mr Tustin stated that on the night in question the pictures were out late, there w<as boxing on. and the Australian Band was also playing. The pictures, according to Mr Murray, were out the latest in his experience, and the restaurant was simply inundated with customers. As a rule they were able to cope with the usual crowd of (after-picture customers by 10.30 o’clock, and there was no necessity to employ waiters or casuals. The case in question was an exceptional one, and counsel submitted that it did not warrant the maximum penalty. I The Magistrate observed that it was cutting it pretty fine asking the girls to attend to customers from the pictures, which came out at 10.15, when they had to be off at 10.30.

Inspector Gohns added that other restaurants managed to comply with the taw and prevented people from entering their establishments after a stipulated hour. The Magistrate considered that a breach of the law was clear. The defendants were in the trade to make money, and they deliberately infringed the taw for the purpose of increasing their takings. It was impossible to treat the case lightly owing to the previous breaches and warnings. On the night referred to Mr ‘Murray had the restaurant going strong, and the breach of the award was serious.

Judgment was entered for the plain tiff for the sum of £2O.