ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 265, 3 August 1920, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT

COOKS AND STEWARDS

APPLICATION FOR NEW AWARD"

Consideration was Riven by the Arbitration Court yesterday to tlie claims of the Federated Cooks' and Ktowarde' Union for a new award. On the bench were Mr. Justice Stringer and with him as assessors Mr. \Y. ficott (for the employers) and Mr. J. A. M'Ciillouah (for the emnloyeesl

Mr. E. Kennedy represented the union, nnd Mr. ]V. Prvor appeared for the employers, When the dißOutfi was before the Conciliation Council an asreement was arrived at on all points except those relatinc to wages. days off rer month, and certain minor matters. ;The dispute affects about 40 small coastal steamers, employing about 80 cooks and stewards.

In presenting\the union's side of tho eni>. Mr, Kennedy said that tho wngeß claims wero a« follow:—Chief stewards, £17: chief cooks, £i 7; cook-steward, with assistant or assistants. £17; chief steward" or ehief cooks, employed in vcsr,ols to carry 20 or more passengers, £1 Tier month extra; assistant cooks or stewards, £14: cook-steward where no assistant employed, £20; stewardesses, £10. Mr. Kennedy added that the lone hours worked by members of the union should bo taken into consideration in fixinc the wanes. He auoted from agreements to that th<> wasea agreed upon between the Union Company and Hb employees were in cxccbb of those paid to workcrß employed in the smaller boats. The stewardr, or assistants on tho email boats had to nerform nractically all kinds of work, whereas on tho larsor boats thn same work was distributed among several workers. The union also deßircd tho Court to settle tho Question whether overtime wiib to be counted as waees. Tlie coiinter-pronosals submitted by the employers provided for a monthh- wag« of £1 less thur. demanded in the case of the chief steward, chief cook, and cooksteward with assistant or' assistants: £3 less in the case of cook-steward where no assutant employed: £2 less in the c*sn of assistants; and £1 less in the case of stewardesses.

, Mr. Pryor said that hn could not mmelne the Court putting the employee! now concerned on the same footing an the cooltß and stewards in the Union Company s service. There could be no comparison between their worlt. owing to tho Innrei- staffs with larger responsibilities that obtained In the ease of the Union fleet. The small boats ought not to be put on the same footing as the larger vessels. because on account of the naturo of their trade the former frequently laid up m Wellington and other ports for several days at a stretch. The proposal for a -vvccUh- holiday was unworkablo 1 , c , ra ?,'? ycra preferred to Kraut an annual holiday. In that the Court would reserve its decision, the president said that there was not a. great deal in dispute. He complimented both sidea on stating their case very fairly and very temperately.