ARBITRATION COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 55, 14 June 1910, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

A JUDGE'S STRICTURES. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Yesterday. During the hearing 'of the Cooks' and' Waiters' Union dispute to-day, Mr. Carey, on behalf of the union, said the present award did not provide a living wage. Justice Sim (president) said that some unions appeared to imagine the Court was a machine for eternally reducing the hours of employment and increasing wages. The Court was, on the contrary, there to hear, bona fide disputes and, as laid down in the Gis-! bourne case, unions would have to show that conditions had materially altered before the Court would change rates fixed previously. His Honor also said that while the Court was considering the question of holidays previously the union got slipped into an Act of Parliament a provision for a half-holiday weekly. Why should the Court interfere with the Legislature? Why not ask the Legislature to fix the hours"of work? Mr. Carey retorted that where the Legislature had fixed 52 hours under the Shops and Offices Act (and oyster saloons worked under it), the Court had fixed 56 hours as a week's work. His Honor said no doubt the Court saw that if it reduced hours it would have had to reduce wages. Evidence was called to support the demand: for increased wages. COOKS AND WAITERS. Wellington, Last Night. The dispute between the Wellington Cooks and Waiters' Union and the local hotel keepers was heard by the Arbitration Court to-day. The union asks for a new award to supersede the expiring one made in January, 1008. Shorter hours, increased wages, especially for the lower-paid workers, a full day's holiday in each week, and an improved preference clause, are the main features of I the new award sought for. At the outset the Court ordered that any decision in this case was to apply to oyster saloons. I

Mr. E. J. Carey, secretary, who appeared for the union, argued that at present employees were not receiving a living wage. Married men could not support wives and families on the wages received.

Evidence in support of the union's demands was given by several workers. One admitted that for sixteen months he had received 30s weekly and signed the wages-book as having received £2. Giving evidence in support of the claim for (preference, Mr. Carey said the number of persons affected* by the award wa9 from 1000 to 1200. The present number of members of the union was 220 males and 12 females. In 1908 the membership was 816. In 1909, the first year of the Court's award, it fell to 546, and at the beginning of this year it had fallen to 396. After the union had i"oeen granted preference in 1906. three-fourths of the employees were members of the union, but the numbers decreased considerably as soon as preference was withdrawn. Mr. W. Pryor, representing the employers, urged that the business of hotelkeeping would not stand the increases asked for. Evidence was given by several hotelkeepers, who said business was falling away considerably. The Court will deliver its award in due course.