Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ARBITRATION COURT

COOKS' AND WAITERS' DISPUTE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The hearing of the private hotel and restaurant employees' application for a new award was completed to-day before the Arbitration Court. Further evidence was called by Mr. (Irenfell on behalf of the employers. Mr. (irenfell, addressing the Court on behalf of the employers, asked that the old award should stand, with additions empowering employers to keep two days' wages in hand, which could be forfeited in case of an employee leaving without giving forty-eight hours' notice, the employer to have the right to dismiss without notice for good cause. He urged that if conditions had changed, the employers had got the worst of it. In Christchurch and Dunedin the Court had refused an award in regard to private hotels, and there was no difference between Wellington and the other centres. The President differed. Numbers of the Wellington private hotels were, he said, already working under an award. Mr. Grenfell concluded by urging that private hotelkecpers were already under great statutory restrictions. Mr. Carey (for the employees), replying to the suggestion that the union had see-sawed between the Court and Parliament, said. he thought it fair to get redress from a dozen sources if he could. The union would be foolish if it did not do what many other trades had done. Miners had frequently gone to Parliament for improved conditions, and had also come to the Court. Mr. Scott: And the Court refused to make an award.

Mr. Carey added that much had been made of the union's forty-two hours' ideal. If the union rested upon present conditions it would not he doing its duty. The Employers' Association also had an objective, but nothing much was said about this, lie submitted that he had made out a good case for preference, at any rate to a modified extent, to be approved by the Court. PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. In the case of the Hawkc's Bay tailoresses' award, this contained a provision that if an employer engages a nonunionist he shall notify the union secretary within seven days. It shall be the duty of the non-unionist to join the union within seven days after receiving from the secretary notice in writing to do so, and it slinli be the duty of every non-unionist affected by the award to join the union within fourteen days of its coming into operation. The Court reserved its decision. This concluded the Wellington sittings.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19110309.2.47

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 257, 9 March 1911, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
409

ARBITRATION COURT Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 257, 9 March 1911, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 257, 9 March 1911, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert