ARBITRATION

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2454, 6 May 1915, Page 9

ARBITRATION

PRIVATE HOTELS DISPUTE

SHOULD AN AWARD BE MADE?

The sittings of the Court of Arbitration were resumed morning. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer presided, and sitting with him as assossors were Messrs. E. F. Duthie (the employer' representative) and J. A. M'Cullough (the employees' representative). The business before the Court was the hearing of the dispute between tho Wellington Hotel, Club, and Restaurant Workers' Union and tho employers in the industry other than the proprietors of licensed hotels. The employers cited by the union included private hotelkeepers, oyster saloon-keepers, restaurantkeepers, aoid proprietors of luncheon rooms, tea rooms, and refreshment rooms generally. Mr. E. J. Carey appeared for tho union, while Mr. W. A. W. Greufell appeared for the employers. The rates of pay demanded by tho union for different classes of workers ranged from £4 10s. per week to £1 7s. fid. per week for mples, and from £3 7s. 6d. per week to £1 per weak for females. The union further asked for an additional payment of 15s. per week in the case of any worker not provided with board, and 7s. 6d. per week in the case of any worker not provided with lodging. In regard to weekly holidays, it was asked that every employee engaged in six-day houses should (on some, one working day of the week) be allowed a ha'f holiday-from 2 p.m., and that every employee engaged in sevenday houses should be allowed one full day's holiday of 24 hours every week, tho week's work not to consist of a longer period than 56 hours for males nor 52 hours for female-s ol* youths under 18 .years of age. There were also provisions in the demands relating to casual workers, placo of engagement, preference, time and wages book, and payment of wages. Counter-proposals originally filed by the employers were for the old award to stand. Later amended counter-pro-posals were submitted in which the employers suggested that provision should ■be made for mid-day waitresses and three-quarter time assistants. The employers, however, objected to the award emoraoing private hotels. An answer to these counter-proposals was filed by the union, objecting to all save the provision for mid-day waitresses, and agreeing to this only on the understanding that waitresses so employed shoulcl be paid at the rate of Is. 6d. per hour Mr. Carey, in his opening remarks, mentioned that conditions, which had been asked for, had in many cases been recognised as fair and reasonable, and,in some instances proprietors of establishments had paid wages in excess of the rate demanded by the union. The union's desire was to bring into line the class of employer which he described as "disreputable." He referred specially to the conditions under which female workers in the industry were employed. It was almost pitiful to bring evidence before the Court as to their hours and rates of pay, but it was necessary because there were many people _ who could not believe that such conditions | existed.

Evidence in support of the union's case was tendered by William Galloway, ohef at the People's' Palace; Robert Kitterage, chef; James Pilkington, chef at the Phoenix Boardinghouse; and several female witnesses.

Mr. Grenfell, in opening tlie.cass for the employers,, submitted that it was not practicable nor equitable to make an award applicable to all such business places as cited_ by the union. _ He referred to. previous decisions in which the Court had stated that it would not make an award unless a particular class of boardinghouse or private hotel could be clcarly defined, and then that, it could, be shown that an award was necessary and desirable. Evidence for. the employers was given by Albert Edward Hugh, proprietor •of Donbank Private Hotel; James Mitchell Paul, proprietor of the Waverloy Private Hotel; William Young, proprietor of Young's Private Hotel; Edward Carrig, proprietor of the Phoenix Boardinghouse; James Godber, pronrietor of Godber's Tea and Luncheon Rooms; and John Oliver, proprietor of tho Burlington Tea Rooms.

At 5.10 p.m. tli" Court adjourned until 9.30 a.m. to-day, when addresses will be heard.