ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1999, 5 March 1914, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

HOTEL WORKERS' CASE. FIGHT FOR A SIX DAYS WEOK DECISION RESERVED. The sitting of the Court of Arbitration was continued yesterday. Sir. Justice Stringer presided, and with him as assessors were Mr. W. -Sjott (employers' representative) and Mr. J. A. M'Culloug'h (employees* represetttativc). During the morning tho Court was occupied with the further hearing of the Hotel Workers' dispute, in which the employers wero represented by M>. U. A. W. Grenfell, and, the employees b.v Mr. E. J. Carey.. Tho initiative in the'case had been taken by the employers, who asked tohavo the award of 1910 reinstated. The employees submitted countfer-proposak, a feature of which was the demand for rsix-days' week—36 hours tor n>e;n a-ad 52 hours for women. .• Further cvidenc© in'sup-pott of the workers' caße was gi'v-an by Henry Taylor, Waiter at the Grand Hotel'; W. Watson, kitchenman and. boilerinai* at the Grand Hotel; John -B'TOcktebank, boilerman at the Royal Oak; Charles Bilby, -kitchenhaiad at the Boval Oak; James Cleveland,- Frank Wooller, Albert Dienstback, Joseph Riley, J3. J. Conchie, and the secretaries of tho Wanganui and Palmorston North branches of the union. ,

Subsequently Mr. Grenfeli . r-esalled John Beveridgo (proprietor of the Grand Hotel) to givo cettain evidence in rebuttal of some of the Statements made by Mr. Carey's witnesses. Evidence in the same direction was also given by F. J. Oakes {proprietor of the City Buffet- Hotel) and by C. E. Aldridge (manager of tho Hotel Cecil).

Address for ths WorKcrs. Mr. Carey, in! addressing the Court, said that the workers had come to tho j Court feeling that they had a good case j —•knowing that ■in their fight' for the six-days' week they had behind th-erri tho churches, the Press, and the -public, whilo the workers anil the employers were both agreed as to the principle of the six-days' week. He pointed-out'that it was tho function of the Court to pro- j mote industrial' peace and allay iiidas-; trial unrest, but there could be no settlement of tho hotel workers 3 unrest until the six-days' week. were granted,! as they felt confident that it would be,. And even then thefe- would be no settlement until they colild got tho im-: proved conditions that- they were seeking. Why should, the.hotel workers be denied the principle of the Hviftjirwagß; and the hours, which the Court had granted in other branches of industry ? j Was the Court going to allow them to; fight-hero for 15- or 20 ye.ars-j-the cm-1 ployers protesting tho whole timfr—and j tiic-n, liko tho seamen (tio mentioned : this with all respect), go outside the Court and get what they asked witliont a fight? If that we're to happen itcould only weaken the 'influence of the Court. Mv. Carey stressed t!io pni.it' that tho eight-hours' day. which had always been considered by the Cotirt.t© bo impracticable for seamen,, had been, gained outsido'the Csur.t; aiid, though it might'be said that'it lihd'bcen granted in 1910 at the point''of tho bayonet, yet, only tho othej' day, tho same agreement had'been signed up again when tho employers had the' Seamen's Uni-Os at their mercy. After' giving some of his iowii'. experiences .tb show the hards'hips'uhderHvhic'li'!iirorkWf!i''m tiie hotel industry, suffered, Mr. Carey eon-eluded by asking if it was, always to. ho that the workers'in'hotels we're "to''ho the J drawers of.,water ttnd..tlie bowers of wood for tho rest of the coniiminity. For the EmPi°y e ''S' Mr. Grenfeli submitted that many of the union's demands could not in.fairness be granted in a. business already harrassed as the lintel business wari. The employers particularly objected to tho union's demand that nil appointments should bo made through the union secretary. This, it was contended, might lead to: abuses. Mr. Carey had himself admitted that the union had "turned do-.vn" men who had been gui'ty of misconduct It. might be, however, that what tho union 'considered to be misconduct might not be bo. viewed b.v an employer, and it was sub* mitted that tho employer, after interviewing his man, was best qualified- to engage him for work. If the matter of appointments were placed in tho hands of. the union secretary, it was possible that a member of -a- unio-il, sinifdy be* cau.se ho was not a "good imwmist," might ho allowed to "da a perish.'.' Mr. Grenfeli enumerated some of the difficulties that would confront the employers if .certain of tin* demand", of the union wore granted in regard to hours and rate sof pay. In conclusion, he stressed the importance of 'the Court's decision in regard to the- matter of the whole holiday. Apparently tiro Louis* lature'had not the time or the inclination to settle,' this question, and had left it to the Court. Any order mado by the Court now would' a.pnl'y to pi-ac-' tically the whole of Krew Zealand, for 'the unions in other centres would not bo slow to take advantage of. tho decision and press their claims. For. that reason he asked the Court togivo the matter very careful consideration, Decision was reserved. " i

OTHER OASES, DEMANDS IN PLUMBING TRADE. " An application for a Dominion award in the plumbing industry: occupied the attention of the Court during the latter part of tho day. The- applicants wefre tho New Zealand Federated Plumbers' -■d Gasfitters' Industrial IJnion of Workers, while the respondents were ' 1 -< New SSci'laud Fe-deratiou -of Master numbers' Industrial Association of Employe Vs.

Mr. 11. Breen, of appeared for tho workers, 'ml associated- with him wore Messrs. .T. Clark, of Auckland, and F. Swindells, of Eaveiisbouriie. Tim case for tho employers was in the hands of Mr. W. A. W. Gfonfoll.

Tho demands of tho workers wei'e for a week of 44 hours, with, .wages at the rate of Is. 6d. per/hs.ftr for iourney* mon plumbers and ga-sfittere, and Is. Bd. per hour for leading hands', with Is. per day ■ extra as v 'dirt money**. when any journeyman or'apprentice happened to bo employed on dirty work... It was asked that all .wages should ho paid in cash weekly, and that'overtime- should bo paid at tho rate of timo and a half from 5' p.m. until 9 p.m., awl thereafter until 8 a.m. double time, and double timo also on Sundays "and re.<ju* lation holidays. Special okuses were inserted in tho demands in regard to cas'* rying materials, country work, suburban work, tools, bicycles, underrate workers, and preference

Counter-proposals wore put in by the employers, submitting that "tho week's work shall not exceed 45 hours," and that "in cases where the employer is carrying on the business ■ of a tinsmith in connection with that of a plumber the hours of work may bo forty-eight per week." As rates of pay, tho cisplo.yers offered Is. sd. pftf how tjsr registered plumbers, and Is. 3d, per'hour for unregistered plumbers, but thoy objected to tho extra rnte asked, for leading hands. Tliey offered time and a quarter for the first two hours overtime, timo and a half thereafter, time and a half also for ordinary holidays, and double timo for work done on Sundays, Christmas Day, and Oood Friday. They objected to the clauses jji reference to carrying materials au ; d bicycks, -and siib-

mitted certain variatwiis'. of other daiis.es. . "■ '

It was mentioned that at a conference belli the previous evening the parties had agreed that»no piecework should he allowed' and had aiso agreed as to the "interpretation" of plnaiW. On other matters np agreement hail been reached.

Mr. Broen opened the workers' case yesterday, and then proceeded to cail evidence.

llifi first witness, J. Clark, secretary o{ -tho Auckland Plumbers' Uniim, was still being examined at 5.5 p.m. svlicn the adjournment was taken. Further hearing' of the dispute is set- down for 10.30 a.m. to-dav.

WAIRAIiAI'A BUTCHERS. . In connection with the employers' ap> ; pii-catjon to withdraw the WairarapaButchers' dispute from hearing, His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer announced thatth© question would stand over until toe day fixeij for the hearing—ne-xt Wednesday, He tliought it was pro'bablß, owini; to the practice laid dowm by Mr. Justice Sim, and frluch lie did not teel disposed to alter, that the Court would allow tiro dispute to bo withdrawn. He indicated that he vmM con-sßlt with Mr. Jirstico Sim and would give th« parties notice of the Court's intention in the matter.