ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16261, 11 July 1918, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH SITTINGS. Tho sittings of the Arbitration Court opened in the Provincial Council Chambers yesterday, before his Honour Mr Justice Stringer, Mr W. Scott (employers' representative), and Mr J. McCullough (workora' representative). BAKERS' AND PASTRYCOOKS' DISPUTE. Mr .T. Wilson, secretary of the Union, asked that an agreement come to boforo tho Conciliation Court bo registered as an award. Mr H. Broadhead npplk'.i for exemption regarding certain cias:rc.s for the D.1.C., Beath and Co., AV. Broadway, Miss Coombs' (Henrietta Tea Rooms), and W. Thomson. Evidence was given by \V. Broadway as to certain ar.omu.lic3 in tho time allowed for overtime in regard to tho work neoeflsary for the making ol hot-cross buns. Witness ako suggested that a scale should be arrange! for the employment of women. At tli6 present time lio did not employ women to manufacture poods, but might have to if the male labour market was disoigunised. Miss Coombs appealed against being brought under the award. Sho employed women only, end cmtM not carry on under tho proposed scale of wages to bo paid to male journeymen. Mrs Thomson (carrying on business as W. Thomson, bakers and confectioners), objected to being brought under tho award. She did not think it fair that tea rooms which competed with her should be allowed to pay a lower scale of wagea.

Mr Wilson «i>i he did not. object to the D.I.C. being left out, as thero waß no retail selling of confectionary over tho counter there. Beath and Co., however, did eell cakee, etc., for consumption oS the premises', and thus competed. His Honour eaid that if Messrs Beath and Co. left off selling' goods over the counter for consumption off tho premises, they would be omitted from tho award. Miss Coombos would be left out pro tern. If it became apparent that her business seriously competed with tho bakers and confectioners, an application to bring her under tho award could be made.

LEADLIGHT AND GLASSWORKERS. An application was made and granted that the recommendations made at the Conciliation Council regarding the Christchurch Leadlight and Glawv/orkers' dispute bo made into an award. ELECTRICAL WORKERS. An application was made and granted to have the Timaru Borough Council and Messrs H. Bunz (Timaru) joined to tho award. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AWARD. Mr Broadhead applied for total exemption from tho award for all tho privato hotels in Christohurch, cxcept one. Ho stated in 1809 the Union had demanded the inclusion of privato hotels, which application had been very emphatically refused by the Court. The conditions wero the came now as then, and tho Court's decision. still_ held good. The workor® made no complaint' regarding their position, and he therefore asked the Court to endoiee its former decision.

The Hon. J. Barr, who appearod iot_ the Union, contended that the fact that a decision had been given by the Court was a good orgument for the employeis, providing that the conditions in the law had not altered. He submitted, however, that by a clause in the amended Shops and Offices'. Act, 1910, which referred specifically to private liotels, the law had been altered. .Ho aleo submitted that private hotels and large boarding houses were in direct competition with the I ice need houses and should pay the same wages. His Honour said he thought places like St. I Elmo, Warwick House, and The Lodge could not be classed ae privato hotels. People could not go in their casually for a meal. Mr Barr admitted this, but still contended that these places were strong competitors. Ho did not wish to bring under an award small places where lodgings wero let only to supplement the owners' or occupiers' income, but he thought place 3 where tho obvious and main business of the place was that of a boarding house, and which wero competitors with hotels already under the award, should be brought under it- , , ~ , His Honour said the Court had already refused to include similar, places to St. Elmo, Warwick House, etc., in Wellington. Private hotels, like the Federal, and places wheie casual meals wer*' served, however, would possibly t\e on a different footing. Mr D. Collins, proprietor of the Federal Privato Hotel, said the amendments made in tho Shops and Offices Act, 1910, full}; protected his employees. He did practically no ■casual meal business, and dri not cater for it. Many of the big boardinr-houses had as many boarders as he had. There was more profit to be made iff a licensed hotel than in a private hotel. Ho did exactly the same class of business as the boaiding-houees which the Court had exempted, and his place waa not a restaurant. Mr H. Hucks (Bellvue Private Hotel) said lie only employed one housemaid, his family doing practically ali the work. If he had to pay higher wages he could not carry on. He thought the fact that boarding-houses were not under the Shops and Offices Act while his establishment was was unfair to him. '

Mr Brcadhcad said there were 110 complaints from the employee® of private hotels; the whole matter had been engineered by the union of workers in licensed hotels. The Court reserved its decision on the point of private hotels. The Hon. J. Barr then dealt with the demands modo by the Restaurant Employees' Union, and aeked, substantially, that the rates of pay in Cliristchurch should be the same as that paid in other centres in the Dominion. Mr Brcadhead said the only offer the employers were prepared to make was a 10 per cent, increase on the old rates.

Evidence was given by \V. Brorlway, G. Neageschwender (proprietor of Freeman's Cafe), and A. Rattray. Mr Broadhcad said the employers contended that a 10 per cent, increase was a very fair offer.

Air Barr 6aid that he was "disappointed to hear, that the employers thought that a 10 psr cent, rise was reasonable in 10 yeare. That was what it amounted to, for the las. award expired in 1908. He submitted that the demands made by iha Union were eminently reasonable.

The Court reserved its decision. Ihe Court adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.