ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 47, 19 November 1907, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

The Arbitration Court resumed its sittings yesterday morning, before His Honour »lr. Justice Sim, President of tho Court, Mr. Siinvue! Brown, employers' representative, and Mr: !R. Slater, workers' representative. The time was mainly taken up in hearing ovidcnco in re cooks and,waiters' dispute,

"WELLINGTON SADDLERS "UNION. Application was ,mado by the secretary of the Union 1 (Mr. ButleT) for permission to add eleven names as parties to the dispute. This was granted. GEAR MEAT COMPANY. Application for exemption from the terms of the GeneVnl Labourers Award. . Mr. Grenfell (secretary, to the Employers Association), who appeared for the Gear Company, said that the' company had not been cited as a party to the, dispute, and that therefore ccrtain freezing-men, who were employed in various occupations at Ngahauranga and Petone the offseason should not Tjg placed within the operations of tiio General Labourers-Award. ' His Honour observed that it was simply a question of determining how far the clause defiuing tho term "general labourer" covered tho'class of labopr employed by the Gear Company. The Court had 110 power to grant the .application. - Mr. S. Brown suggested that the company should file an application for an interpretation by the Court of tho clause in question.

COOKS AND WAITERS. The hearing of this caso was then resumed. Mr. W. Pryor conducted the caso for ttio employers. Associated with him were Air. H. J. Williams (representing the Licensed Victuallers Association), Mr. J. Godber (on behalf of tho restaurant and tea-room keepers), and Mr. J. Fairway (representing the oyster saloon keepers). Mr. E. J. Carey (secretary) and Mr. A. Bloch (president) appeared on behalf of the Union. Mr! Caroy, who conducted the examination on behalf of tlie Union, called Gertrude Tewsley. The witness gave evidence that she was employed at Miss 'l'entlali's tea-rooms. She received 225. Gd.. per week. This included os. allowance for,board. She paid 13s. a week, for board and lodging. They were allowed mid-day meals and morning and afternoon tea at Miss Tendall's. Tho other Waitresses were paid on a similar scale. To Mr. Pryor: Witness was previously employed as laay-lielp. ■' Mrs. Carey, formerly employed as waitress at Messrs. Kirkcaldie , and Stains's tearooms,'said that wlien 'in' the employ of that firm she had received 17s. 6d.' per week. She paid 6s. for the rent of a roofii, and Is. 6d. for washing. ■ Witness did her own soft washing. Waitresses at the tea-rooms were allowed mid-day meals, and morning and afternoon tea. She had to buy her meals at night. During her term of service she fell sick, and the doctor who attended her attributed her breakdown to insufficient nourishing food. She afterwards' went into private service at 2-51 per week. To Mr. Pryor: She had been previously employed as second waitress in a hotel, where she had learnt the ivork. Opportunity should bo given waitresses to learn. Gertrude Barnes deposed that she had been employed as a waitress at Godber's Rooms ttt a salary of 225. 6d. per week! Mr. Caroy: You were dismissed 1 , were you hot?—Yes.

Sir. Carey: . Had not your appearance in the Arbitration Court something to do with youv dismissal? His' Honour: The Court does not wish to inquire into the circumstances concerning the dismissal of witness. If wo admit this evidonce we shall be obliged to hear Mr. Godber's statement of the case. Thomas Davis, oyster-opener nt O'Connor's oyster saloon,, said that ho had, had thirty years' experienced He worked twelve hours per day for six days in each week. His wages'wero 355.-per week; with overtime lie averaged £2 weekly. He regarded oystoroperiing' as ' skilled 'labour. He could get 'through two sacks per day., ■ .i J. Carey, secretary to the Union, then gave evidence. He had had eleven years' experience as a waiter. ■ Before being appointed; secretary to the Union he had been employed at the Royal Oak Hotel. Previous to the recommendations of the Conciliation Board the conditions of hotel and restaurant servants in all countries were better than" in New Zealand. When employed in London ho had been granted a whole holiday on alternate Sundays. He then had to work twelve, hours per day, including meal times. He was given a room to himself. The accommodation was excellent. His particular room was similar to those on the fourth or fifth floor of a first-class hotel in England, which brought from 9s. to 10s. per day, and in the busy season 20s. per day. Ho had earned 7s. 6d. per day as a casual waiter at Brighton. For. balls and banquets they were paid 20s. a night, lu Wellington he had been employed as a casual waiter at Godber's at 20s. per day. When the award of 1902 came out it was. ridiculed by both sides. His Honour: .We are not going to listen to criticisms of the work of this Court, Mr. Carey. . ■_ . . "TJie witness, continuing, said that on an average he took about ss. weekly in tips. Referring to the cost of. living, he said that the insurance company .had loaded him 25 per cent, because ho was. a hotelkeeper. There was a dearth of .hotel servants. He had recently been asked, as secretary to the Union, to supply six waitresses, but- had been unable to find them fov some time. A waitress for a hotel at Huntorvillo at 20s. per week, was asked f6r in vain.- '■ , During the poriod July 7 to November 16, over-301) situations had been filled through the agency of the Union. Thero were, approximately, 700 financial members on the books of the Union. They wero all workers in Wellington. . Experienced hands were wanted. 'He.-had seen the head waiter at the ' Royal Oak Hotel dismiss n' new hand after but a few minutes' work. He thought that the provisions referring to lioad waiters would, if carried out, be disastrous to the Union. ' His Honoiir: They don't appear to think so. > Francis M'Parlane, licensee of the Hotel Cecil, said that he had observed the provisions of the 1902 award. Back money for holidays had been paid in acoordance with the award. Ho could not remember the exact amount, as it had gone through' liis manager. Witness was President of the Licensed Victuallers' Association. So far as he'was aware, the other hotelkeepers had respected the award. Frederick Benfield, chef at the Arcadia, deposed that he was a non-unionist. He was paid £5 per weok with hoard, but not lodging. At Warner's Hotel in Christchurch his wages were £4 10s. and found. On an averngo the hours worked at the Arcadia were under (35. Ho wished to bo free from the restrictions of an award. His Honour: Would it bo inconvenient to be tied down by an award P—Yes. To Ml". Pryor: Ho was present at a meeting of chefs, at which the question of .getting exemption from the award was discussed. He would prefer to bo out of the award. William Fits; second conk at the Eoyal Oak Hotel, £aid that he didn't want exemption exactly, but he did not wish to be tied down to a fixed basis of half and whole holidays. John Clary, chef at the Occidental Hotel, said that he did not want exomption from the award. Bofor© tho Union was organised there was great difficulty ib getting tho halfholiday. .Evidence was also given by the following:—Alexander [ Bloch, President of the Cooks and Waiters' Union; Waitresses—Anna Cochrane 1 (Kirkcaldio and Stains), Emma Flood (Occidental Hotel), May Jennings (Royal Oak), Mrs. Lewis (Alhnmbra), Miss Pointing (Coffee Palace), Violet .Blake (Critorion Cafe), Dora Burko (Kirkcaldie and Stains), Beatrice Montefioro (Kirkcaldio and Stains). Waiters—Thomas M'Kcnzio (Silver Grid), Robert Pace (Grand Hotel), George Feinam (Royal Oak), David Wild '(Hotol Cecil), William Madden (Albert Hotel), Herbert Monk (pantryman, Grand Hotel), Frederick Schlitzkus (Ro.yal Oak), Romain Mnnger (Royal Oak), John Kelly (night porter, Royal Oak), John Woods (night porter, Empire Hotel), Albert Toy (general hand, Albion Hotol). Cooks—William Horling (casual hand at Christchurch), Joseph Spencer (second cook, Empire Hotel), Frederick Rumble (Empire), Honry Gunn (chef,

Metropolitan), John Brocklobank (kitchen hand. Royal Oak), Arthur Webb (chef, Albert Hotel), Paul Muller (second.cook, Royal Oak), Henry Dutfori (ex-kitchenman at Occidental Hotel), William Brooks (kitchonman, Royal Hotel), John Wallace (second cook, Arcadia)., Mr. Carey then addressed tho Court. He said ho had endeavoured, as. far as possible, to curtail tho evidence. There had been great difficulty in getting witnesses to givo evidence. His Honour: The witnesses did not appear to he reluctant to testify. '■ Mr. Carey, continuing, claimed that tho demands of the Union woro moderato. Thero was a great dearth of hotel servants. Tho Union desired to bind employers to an agreement with respect to tho half-holiday per week and tho whole day por month. Their workers had been neglected by tho Legislature. There had been no effort made to ameliorate the conditions of labour appertaining to his Union. _ Its members were intelligent and deserving. Tho conditions olseiyhoro were hotter than in Now Zealand. Further, their workors wero compelled to be on duty when others were holiday-making. Employers could woll afford to be reasonable. In from teh to twelve years a publican was usually ablo to retire on tho interest of his money. He appealed to tho Court to consider favourably the demands of his Union. By organising their ranks they had added thirteen hours to tho working wook. They wanted the half-day a week and ono day a month. His Honour: You accepted tho benefits of the recommendations of the Conciliation Board, but you wish to repudiate tho burden. Mr. Carey, continuing, said that the Union was a young ono, and had not beon floated by agitators. '' Mr. Pryor briefly addressed tho Court. He said when merit was deserving of higher wages these wore paid. The employers had met the position in a way that: must meet with the approval of tho Court. Increases of per cent, had beon made in somo eases. Th 6 main points for the Court to consider were—(l) classification of hotels, (2) preference'to Unionists, (3) lodging allowances for restaurant and oyster saloon employees.

His Honour intimated, that tho Court would take time to consider the matter.