HOTEL EMPLOYEES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 744, 17 February 1910, Page 5

HOTEL EMPLOYEES.

'' THE DISPUTE.'

;: ; % ;:; ; ,THE .EMPLOYEES , *; ; Mr,; J;' S." !'Palmer, , ;.'presideht'' 'of. -the" 1 Licepseli- Victuallers', • Association' of ■ New ZealandiSVas interviewedVyesterday.on the' I'^ubjec't;of.itheVdispute'beween.the Hotel ana-Eesta want \K.eepers':'Association; and' :the-.dift'erent'.unidns ; of -hotel i'employeeo;: .The; case, for; the ,:unions, was ■ put' by'.Mr; , iE.-J.\Carey,Vin an■.inter'vi'ewipublished in ; this iprirnal yesterday, .;/>•;.;. .c ; 4S',;Vs- : ;'^- : .■■ : ; ;;.Mr. Palmer, said; Vlt is' quite .true that negotiaUflns'ior; a : ,c6nti!i : ence.betaveen ; the parties'twere opened'in , Auckland 'at the' tegihnibg>'of. , jie'vyeai>'^Messrs.'T. , :Long (representing '■■ the - Auckland \Union):•' and , ' Mr. '■ E; J;'. J Carey., (secretary'iv , Cdoks' ,, . and : Waiters , Union)-saw.,;and told: me : -that,-' seeing ;that;■ the'Dunedm'.'and'Wellington■ awards .would.soon.'expire, and-having re--•gard to that-the ,; .Auckland ; agreement;, had no-legali-fbrce'irit vwas'dcsiredthat;,;a .uniform-.agreement. should, \ii -gas\Biblej; be : at. i.. , . They ■ suggested ,a conference in"Wellington;tb deal with the matter, -sI/was.Mder the impression that .any ■ fresh ■ demands which. LW.ere : likely'; to be made would ;be or less ;on,': the 'lines: of; the confents ;.of: existing ;awards,":subiect,; probably, l to', slight' modC' ■fications-.whioh'might'be;-found necessary •for better;.working. : --..TSe : ,outcome 'of 'the; interview -(noted;.abbve).; ; .was..yesterday's' conference,;-'''';^ , ';:':;^;; 1 ;;;. v.i'-.t'V-.v v ,';' :^-;-; ''Unreasonable'aridiExtiiiitionafe. , ':;'.

/' /.'.'The icbnference . was', arranged '{without .any/ deinands; being /submitted -for ■.: con-, sideratioii.;: VVheii,these, deuiands were re-' 'ceiyed.byvthe-emplriyersJthey-were' forrwarded the , 'branches;directly concerned/' Asisoon ai was demands ..were con{sidered :in;each -district;'and' in every: case ■ tbey.'were; characterised as /;unreasonable' arid.extortionate; in fact,.npt;to;be.taken ■Serio'usiy.;V'Ono new'proposal"suggested -a , ' ■;100.;per centi: iiicrease ;':^ii;, yi ages,, with a; reduction'of'.liqurs -pet week;i'rom 'sixty-' i to ■ .-i-'meait' • itE!\it'■w«rß agreed-. : to,". a'. whole'■ day's '''•: holiday^' when tho /sfatuteS'j'pro vided;half ; 'a;.day;-' ;.It! was,: however,.7considered 'injudicious to ;decline-'-a ;at this' stage';b&;'' causo/bfv the; short: time'.remaining , : for 'dealing with the:matter,'-and'becauseVire'i did not want the.unions;to think we were treating. , them'/cayalierly'.'. / '' ■'.' ' // ■-"■•■ : y-./i ,;/?• •■/'« ":)!'. Futjle ;;to Proteed.'V 'V V.Vv-i.'- 'C,:;?"At' /thei opening f of/, thei'conference ! I■ respectfully. v asked: the;.chairman (Mr. P; Hally, Commissioner),, if 'the employees' union:would agree to.- discuss 'and, accede: to. : a«:fresh : industrial/■ 'agree-' ment',;bascd',on-. the Uines/of those -which■were, tp-all-inteiits.and purposes, ,/then current,-:■ especially,! seeing 'that '■■ the..:last award—that for: the liptorua district—had been entered.in.tb as recently as last November.' 'llr!-Carey ; appeared- to resent tho /question, and :llatly/refused ,tq consider any modification in; the-present demands as .regards'.hours, 'holidays,:, and -.wnges/'.'and.. declared' his. preference for, ■taking:the ;mattpr before .the Arbitration Court; At. that,'- the ./employers recognised that it .was absolutely futile to pro-'- ; ceed any further :with :.'the/■ conference.' From' my-knowledge'and , experience , of the.trade,'.l. am quite,, certain that , the employers collectively: 'are willing .and anxious;:that/ the reasonable.demands ■ of ■the/workers should .receive fair a'nd\prpper consideration..'.: "We;.' have ■ no', desire either to/;overwork or'.uiid.erpay, bur.employees." /;./ ~.':,//. /..'/ : ; "; ; -; .-'.!■' .- '.