[.—9a

68

E. NORTION.

21. Mr. Carey. |Do yon employ a domestic servant] — I am a lone bachelor. 22. Do the people who employ domestic servants compete with each other?— The boarding house-keepers thai employ domestic servants do. 2-' i. Supposing Parliament wants to make sure that the widow and daughter keeping a boardinghouse shall 00l be affected by the Lours regulation in this Bill, what better definition than the one proposed in the Hill oan you suggest?— The only definition I oould suggest is tn leave out all the exemptions which I understood you were in favour of. _I. You say the hotelkeepers in Christchurch want no exemptions in the Hill at all: I , i ecist'ly. 2~>. Do vim know that the licensee of the Clarendon Ilot<-1 in Christchurch gave the employees one whole day a fortnight for some time?- Yes, under Mr. Colli ns's management. 26. And it worked all right? —No, it worked badly. It was his intention if he remained in the hotel to give up the system. 21. Who stopped the practice? — Mr. Price, I believe. ■JS. You spoke about board and lodging for employees. As a matter of fact, board and lodging under the award is part of the wages, is it not i -Well, I suppose it is.

Johh llknhy Pagni examined. (No. 33.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you/ 1 am secretary of the Auckland Licensed Victuallers Association, which comprises as near as possible eighty hotels, and 1 am also licensee of the Britislt Hotel. Auckland. The position to my mind has been made so clear by the previous speakers that it has left very little for me to add. The Auckland hotelkeepers have gone fully into the qties tion of exemptions, and they hold thai there should be no exemptions whatsoever. If there are exemptions made in the ease of an employer who has three assistants or less that employer will find that lie will not be able to obtain any labour at all, because no one would work there when he could gel employment ai another place for six days a week instead of seven. It would be unfair to have any exemptions in the Bill, and we consider it should be the same with all. We did not know in Auckland until Saturday lasl that this matter was coining up so soon, so I managed to visit some hotelkeepers ami get statements from them as to the extra cost which would be entailed if this Bill were put into force. In the case of tl>e Star Hotel 1 obtained a statement which shows that the extra cost would amount to £8 2s. 6d. per week, or £422 10s. per annum; for the Albert Hotel the extra cost would be t(i I (id. per week, or t-!ll Ids. per annum; and in the case of the Koyal Hotel til M)s. per week, or £494 per annum. Then, taking my own hotel, which is somewhat small, if the present Hill becomes law I would have to engage two extrn hands, which would mean an extra cost of f2'M per annum. Regarding the question of ihe suggested amendments in tin . Hill, the Auckland association considers that something should be ■ lone by Parliament on the line-; indicated by Mr. Heveridge. 'I. Mr. fUndinarsh.] Your trade resists every change in regard in the conditions of the employment of servants.' Somewhat. •'). Now. is not your opposition to this Hill very much of the same class as your opposition to the Hill relating to the employment of barmaids .'—-Not necessarily. I. You know that public sentiment in New Zealand is opposed to the employment of women in bars .'- — I do not think so. 5. Parliament has tried twice to bring it about/ —That does not prove anything. (i. Your association in Auckland has fought this matter there.'—Yes, and rightly so. 7. Why? —On a question of principle that it was taking away the right of women to do that kind of work. We hold sin , is just as much entitled to earn a living as anybody else. 8. The same kind of opposition is shown to this Hill as to the Bill relating to the employment of girls? — What we say is that if there should be six working-days a week let us as employers have the same privilege as the employees. We are on duty practically from the Ist January till the -'list December. And if we get away for half an hour or half a day and something happens we are held responsible. Take my place in Auckland ; I am responsible for everything whilst here giving evidence. 0. You are opposed to this Hill on principle, you sey? I saj if any law is to be put on the statute-book it should apply to the whole community. 10. Your association opposed the non-employment of women in bars on principle? —Quite so. 11. And we may take it that a similar principle is behind your opposition to this Bill? —Yes. It is not workable. 12. Mr. Clark.] Do you not think it is possible to increase the tariff.' I do not think so. If you remove the restrictions against the trade probably we might be able to. lint with the restric tions placed upon the trade since the local-option poll has been in existence we cannot call our souls our own. I.'!. Are you mil going to increase the tariff at exhibition time! It lias been suggested, but no one has done so. You cannot put it into operation. 14. Mr. Grenfell.] With regard to engaging additional hands to provide for the holiday, in tin , employment of an extra man in the kitchen you would have your other wages affected b\ the fact of there being an extra man there? —Quite so. 15. Would not that mean that the wa<_res of the other men in the kitchen would go up?- Ye>. Under the present award in Auckland, which is applicable pretty well throughout the Dominion, if yon have three or four hands tin , wages go up. Hi. With an extra man in the kitchen it would mean that the waves of the man above him would go up?— Yes.