ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17114, 8 April 1921, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

YESTERDAY'S SITTING. The Court of Arbitration resumed yesterday his Honour Mr Justice Fraaer presiding-, and tho. other "members of tho Court—Messrs W. Scott (employers' representative) and J. A. McCtxllough (employees' representative) being present. CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOTELS. In tho Christchurch City Hotels dispute, Mr F. Cooper appeared for the employers, and Mr E. Kennedv for the Union. Mi Kennedy said "that a- partial eettlcmenj had been arrived at before the Council of Conciliation, and tho Union was prepared to accept Of tho matters remaining in dispute, he had in consultation with Mr Cooper arrived at an agreement 83 follows: —Casual workers, the clause in tho 'Wellington award; special occasion? the provision in the Wellington award, with an alteration; term of employment, clauso 8 of Wellington award, with an alteration; overtime, clause 9of the Wellington award. This left in dispute: Hours of work, holidays, special hoh-> days, wages, and term of award. Regarding 1 hours, Mr Kennedy said that this matter was gone into fully when the Wellington case was before the Court; apparently the Christ- ' church employers desired to throw the onus orrtho Court of imposing the 43 hours week upon them. Generally speaking, when the Court embodied a gTeat principlo in an award for our centre, it invariably carried out tha samo principle in awards in other centres. The only point they desired provided for, rot provided in the Wellington award, was that the hours of the night porter should be continuous. As to holidays, they were prepared to take the Wellington award. He intimated that the Union intended to fully argue before' the Court tho question of a. weekly half-holiday in addition to ouo full day off per week; they recognise that to put into effect tho decision of tho Court of Appeal would cause a great deal of trouble. Mr Cooper said that the employers were prepared to accept tho clauso in the Wellington award if the Union would agreo to the inclusion of the proviso in respect of Carnival Week. Mr Kennedy eaid that this proviso hod been abused, girls having been given a holiday the week before Carnival Week, instead of the week after. It was agreed that Messrs Cooper and Kennedy should confer regarding a proviso that would bo agreeable to the parties. Regarding wage 3, Mr Kennedy pointed out that wnile the Wellington award provided a definition of "double pay" there was no^ provision setting out tho days on which, w tho employee worked, he was to receive double pay. They wanted double pay given for work done oil Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Sovereign's birthday, and Labour Day. He made a strong appeal for hotel workers receiving minimum living wage as set out jn tho Court's declaration of last December, £1 lis. Mr Scott eaid that tho Court fixed that amount only in respect of intermittent employment, and not in respect of those employed constantly. Mr Kennedy said that he found nothing in lh© terms of the Court's pronouncement that included hotel workers from receiving the minimum living wage. Ho explained that tho demands were drawn up before the Court's pronouncement waß made, consequently they -had amended their wages demands to bring them into lino with the Court's declaration.

Mr Coopor said that if conditions had remained normal the employers in Chrietchurch would have boon prepared to accept tlie recent decision of tho Court in other centres in relation to hours of work (ind wages. At tho time- those decisions were l given it would not have been altogether a serious matter. Shorter hours involved increased costs, and. last October and November increased costs were not a very material, factor to tli© parties concerned, bocanao the public seemed quite receptive to have theso charges passed on. He did not like to be ijeßsimistic, but Bomo one had to point onto to the Court that a change had taken place, and that these changed conditions were reflected in tho trade of the country, and would ultimately reflect on the workers concerned. It rested very much with the Court aa to when it was. going to affect tho workers in a very material manner.- If tho Court looked at the prevailing conditions at tho present time it would act mote in the interests of tho workers if it decided to put the brake 6"n"+he workers' demands, which, in the past, had been very liberally made, and not very seriously opposed by tho employers. It was not for him, aa representing the employers, to anticipate trouble; he was aware that trouble niight be accelerated, by remarks of a pessimistic character, and nothing would bring on bad times quicker than talking about them, especially at a time when tho tendency was that way. "While ho would like' to bo able to say that the employers were prepared to meet tho demands, because it would bo better for employers and employees if it could ,be done; the fall in the prices of primary products had resulted in a decrease in siwnding power. ■ The eho.-ip-ownei's, when doing we'll, were the most liberal spenders in tho world; when not doing well they were about.the slowest. The effect was definitely observable in licensed and private hotels in the curtailment of travelling. Knowing theae things, the employers, after mature consideration, had decidod that they oould not accede to the Union's demands in respect of hours and wages. It was to easy for the Court to precipitaite what might be serious trouble, and it was just as easy for the Court to put on & brake. If tho Union's claims as to wages and hours were granted they would have <i deleterious effect, and would react very maiterially on the parties concerned, in the present case,- the workers chiefly. As to bonis, if they were shortened, it meant either increasing hands or loss of efficiency. The licensed victuallers wero ■under statutory obligations to provide proper and sufficient ailtenticn to the travelling public, and this could not bo done unless licensed! houses wore properly stalled, and staffs could not be increased unless charges wore raised; at present the public were apparently of the opinion 1 hat charges had reached the limit. Tlw- 48 hours- week had been granted in Australia and in Wellinglton, at the peak of good times, Wellington hotelkeepers were in a better position to meet the increased cost, as ChriscehureJi probably dealt 'with- one-tenth fewer travellers than Wellington. In referring to the question of wages, Mr Cooper submitted : that tho present wages, plus bonus, were adequate. The Court reserved its decision. CITY PRIVATE HOTEI/S. Mr Cooper said that certain ladies who had been cited desired their names struck 'out as ; parties, their submission being that Heir establishments were boardlng-houseß. A lengthy argument ensue! as to the definition of "private hotel," his Honour referring to the Supremo Court judgment that a private hotel is an establishment 'which catered for casual travellers .iiid for single meals. . Mr Kennedy suggested that the definition should be based on the numoer of boarders provided for; places .providing lor twenty guests and over ehould-ba clposilied as pr:vate hotels. His Honour said that the Court quite agreed with this suggested basis for a definition, and Vhe Court proposed to accept 20 as the minimum. Piivato hotels, giving I casual nioals, but ( perhaps, not having accommodation for 20 persona, would not have the benefit of tho exemption. The Court was not absolutely bound by that ruling in those express terms, but, generally sneaking, that was the basis they would adopt. It would bn always open for persons ciairamg special .hardships under the provision to app lv to the Court for relief, but it was-not anticipated ithat .there would be rauny applications of that kind. _ Mr Cooper said that whit wis lrnfaling a number of those who kept private hoteh was the preference clause; ha ihqught the s.ourt might take into consideration the matter ol releasing them from its ijrovjsions. Mr F. J. Murray (St. Hlmo) was given leave to address tho Court. He said that while ho had no objection to tho eocretaiy o< the local Union visiting his, establishment to interview workers, it was r.ot desiraole, for many reasons, that thiis should be <.m,e. The Court promised to into thw matter into consideration. . , ~ j. •, *. Mr Kennedy then went into the details ot the Union's demands. . Mr Cooper's objections were on similar lines to thoee advanced iu the licensed hotel case. Tho Court reserved its decision. RESTAURANT KEEPER. Mr Kennedy explained the demands. Mr Cooper said that if the existing conditions and wages were to be departed from tiro employers asked that the lines of tho Dunedin award should be followed. Exception was taken especially to the proposal that girls employed in restaurants should receive £2 15s per week in wages, in one establishment an increase of 10s per week in wages would mean i9OO par aiinuni, which would eat up more than the profits of the business. Tho Court reser/ed it 3 decision. The Court 109s till this awram,;.