AN HOTELKEEPER'S GRIEVANCE.

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2771, 15 May 1916, Page 6

AN HOTELKEEPER'S GRIEVANCE.

Sir,—You will excuse me lor troubling you again. But the Labour Department id misleading you over my matter. The Labour Department referred you to tho t'liups aud Offices Act, saying 1 had not read. it. Now, when 1 have pointed out that I know the Act olf Ly heart, tho Department says that though I need only (five a half-holiday under that Act, the Arbitration Court can compel mo to give a whole holiday under a «SIUO penalty, turn up Section 10 of the Industrial Arbi. tration Act, sir, and you- will find that the people, through their Parliume.it, have decided that -the Arbitration Court cannot over-ride a statute. I am surprised at the Labour Department tryingto back up the Arbitration Court, and yet not able to give the section which enables the Court to go further than allowed for by Act of' Parliament. Tho Arbitration Court said that, if an Act of Parliament were passed giving backers' employees one loaf a day the Arbitration Ccurt can come along and say wo will givo the employee two loaves a day, and yet admits that it cannot say we shall allow iio bread at all. because it is provided by statute that they must have one loaf a day. If the Court can increase and yet are unable to decrease, are they consistent? It seems a? if the Arbitration Court only looks at disputes from the one side. In New Zealand there are two or' three hundred hotels employing less than five servants affected by this award, and yet the Arbitration Court would not allow air appeal to a higher court. Again apologising for troubling you, and trusting that your able pen will take up tho matter for myself and the other small hotelkcepers of this country,—l am, etc., A. A, PENFOLD.