EMPLOYMENT & LAW.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1822, 7 August 1913, Page 3

EMPLOYMENT & LAW.

COURT OF ARBITRATION. HOTEL WORKERS' CASE AGAIN. Hotel and restaurant workers anil their wages and conditions of labour were undor consideration by the Court of Arbitration yesterday morning. Jlr. Justice Sim presided, and sitting with him as assessors were Jlr. William Scott (employers' representative) and Jlr. ,1. A. Jl'Ciillough (employees' 'representative). An application for an award had been niado by tho employers, who wonted the present conditions and rates of pay to continue. Counter proposals by the union were for certain increases. Jlr. W. A. W. Grenfell appeared for the employers, whilo Jlr. E. J. Carey and Mr. T. Long (Auckland) appeared for the Wellington Hotel Workers' Union. I/is Honour drew attention to tho fact that there was - <i Bill before Parliament at the present time dealing with the subject of liouts and holidays for workers. Mr. Grenfell said that there -was no guarantee that tho present Bill would pass unamended. In tho meantime the applicants sought to obtain somo security of conditions. Hi* Honour asked what tho present position was. Jlr. Grenfell: We are informal by Mr. Carey that he lias the opinion of a legal gentleman of high standing that the award is still in operation. His Honour pointed out that the Court had already said that tha award was not in operation. There was no appeal from the Court's decision, so no legal opinion could have any offoct. Jlr. Grenfell contended that it was not fair to employers that, when there had been a reduction 1 of hours by legislation in the past, there had been no corresponding reduction in wages. The employers hoped now- that tho Court would fix tho conditions definitely.

Aftsr fnrtlior arsrument <is to wlint would happen if the Cou,rt made nn award an:l tlio Act cams into forcp, it siiKKcsted that the matior should be (ldjoiiTned nnt.il tho next sittings of the C""Tt in W^Uinston. Jtr. Grsnfell accepted this Eiißprestio-n, ai'.d J[r. Cnrcy seid that this was what he hj'l de.-ircd all alonß. Hi"! TTonon.r: When, yon: know what the Itwislntion is likely to be, yon mav be able to sett!" tho dispute. ' The hotel workers of Wellington ousrht to be able to yattle their disputes as they, do in other centos. TEST CASE. MATTER OP APPRENTICES' PAS. An action on breach of award involving a point of considerable importance to clothing factories throughout tho Dominion was heard in the Court of Arbitration yesterday afternoon, when the Inspector of Awaixts (R. A. 13 oil and) proceeded against .the Wellington Woollen Company for failing to pay apprentices' wages dining the pariod when tire company's factory was dosed for cleaning purposes. Jlr. H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for "the inspector, while Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the company. From the facts before the Court it appeared that the Woollen Company employs a large number of apprentices. The factory was closed from Dc-cember 21 until January G, and tho apprentices were not paid for that period, except for Christmas Day and New Year's Day. Any deduction in wages was forbidden by the award, and the question was whether the company could claim exemption under t.he Factories Act. which provides that during the period that tho company's premise are closed for cleaning or repairs, the company may deduct the wages of boys or women over 18 years of age. Before argument commenced, Mr. Ostler mentioned that the action was brought as a. test cose. The Department had received' from tho Woollen Company and from other companies the amount necessary to pay tho wages, and this was to bo paid to tha apprentices or to the com- . pany, according to whatever the decision of ilia Court should be." " ; :" : - After hearing argument, the Court reserved decision. BAKERS'TRADE. MOOT POINT IN THE AWARD. An application was made to tho Court of Arbitration yesterday afternoon for an interpretation of the Bakers' Award in regard to Clause 8, relating to the boarding of employees. Mr. Andrew Collins and Mr. A. H. Cooper appeared for the union, while Mr. A. W. Grenfell appeared for James Godber and Co., who were principally concerned. ' The question before tto'Court was whether Godber and Co. were entitled to supply meals to certain of their employees in consideration of- overtime worked. Tho secretary of the union contended that the arrangement ivas made a condition of employment by the firm. This was denied by "the other side, the contention being that the arrangement was one giving mutual satisfaction. The Conrt reserved decision.