J. DOWNIE. j

I.—9a.

The Ghavrtnan: I think the tariff ranges from 6s. to 10s. a day 39. Mr. <!r-'iitdl.\ Have you been working under award?— Yes, ever since I have been there, 1 think. 40. Have you any award now in Wellington?—We work under the Shops and Offices Act. Mr, Clark: Mr. Carey says he does not work under the award.

Francis Joseph Sullivan examined. (No. 47.) 1. The Chairman.\ What are you?—A merchant. 2. You wish to make a statement on this Bill?—I am president of the Private Hotels and Hestaurants Employers' Union. I have been sent up here to represent them. Personally 1 do not employ any of the shop or restaurant employees. 1 am instructed to protest against some of the sections in this Bill, and to ask you to seriously consider such proposals as are made. The principal objections that my union has to the proposals now before you are contained in section 4, subsection (3). These provide that the wages-book must be kept fur at least two years, and the Inspector has a right to inspect it at any time during this period. We think that keeping these records for six months should be ample, as by section 49 no prosecution for an offence can be started after three months, so what is the' use of requiring people to keep these records when they cannot be of any use? For small traders to have to keep a book for two years would entail a great, deal of hardship. Section 5, subsection (5) :We ask that a confectioner .should be described as one whose business it is to sell confections, or sweetmeats, or other eatables usually sold by confectioners. A number of our members run tea-rooms, and they have a restaurant at the back and a confectionery shop in the front, and also sell buns, and it would be very much better, 1 think, and save a lot of irritation, if it were possible to add the words we suggest. In the old Act a fishmonger was described as one who sells fish and fresh fish, and because they sold rabbits there was trouble. 1 was myself challenged because they were not especially mentioned in the Act. Of course, we asked that the wording should be altered. However, I was convicted, and the Act was altered the next session. Section 17 (a) :In the case of fishmongers it is absolutely necessary to have the words "on any working-day or public holiday." It is not quite clear there —" on any working-day (or public holiday)." The fish-shops should be able to be open on public holidays to supply the hotels and boardinghouses. We also have to supply the public when they return from holiday-making. If the stock is not sold it is: mostly lost. The trawlers are working under award, which gives the men the public holida} r s, and if no fish is saleable on the public holidays trawler-owners lose two days. The trawler-owners have endeavoured to get the men on the trawlers to substitute the day before for tjic public holiday, but although all are agreeable the Inspector objects and will not allow any variations of the awards. Section 19 : We would like, after the words "but where a shop," the word " restaurant" to be inserted, so as to read " but where a shop, restaurant, and factory have a common entrance." Many fishshops and tea-rooms have only one entrance, through the shop, into their restaurant; or, better still, we would suggest that this class of shop should be defined as "restaurants." Clause 20: After the word " shop " in the first line " restaurants " should be added, to conform with section 19. Section 26 (exemptions): We suggest that it should be "five to ten," and the word " inclusive" added. It is not quite clear whether it is intended to make it inclusive or not; and the same with "twelve to nineteen inclusive," putting in the word "inclusive' , in each case. The reason we are asking for nine to be included is that the employers' only safeguard is to insist that all employees leave their premises and take their meals outside. It is really a hardship to the employee, as at present the employers must turn employees out on to the streets to get their meals. Section 27, subsection (6), provides for the hours of work in restaurants, and in the opinion of my union there is no reason why this subsection should be in at all. The hours of work in a restauiant should be the same as the hours worked in a hotel, provided for by subsection (a). One of the reasons we ask for this is that when the award was made with the restaurants it provided for a certain number of hours' work, but these hours were spread over seven days in the week, and now it is proposed to only allow six days in the week, or " restaurant " would be included in clause (a). Subsection (2) provides that written notice of extended time worked has to be given tii the Inspector. We consider this must objectionable and likely to lead to a lot of irritation, especially through small employers, many of whom are illiterate, ami through forgetting to give notice the summons is the only alternative, and a waste of their time. Further, it is unnecessary, as the time-book will show this and disclose the offence if committed. Section 27. subsection (5), provides for a whole day's holiday in restaurants and private hotels. This means not only extra labour but also increased rate of pay through the week to the present staff of the kitchen. The award under which we are working provides for graduated pay according to the number of hands employed. Thus if there are three hands employed in the kitchen at present the chef gets £2 155., the second £1 155., and the others £1 7s. 6d. Immediately another man is brought into the kitchen the chef gets £3 55., the second gets £2 55., and the others .£1 7s. 6d., so that it means £2 7s. 6d. and the board to bring an extra man for the week. Section 30 : In the past the word " fixed " has caused difficulties and differences of opinion, and we suggest that the word " fixed " should be eliminated and substituted by the words " on which the assistant has had the whole or half holiday." A restaurant business will not allow employers to fix a day that cannot be altered under any circumstances that arise and which cannot be foreseen. The demands of the business must be a prior consideration to the convenience of either the employers or the employees. We also ask that the hours of fishmongers in the First Schedule should be extended half an hour so as to make it 11 o'clock —11.30 and 11 o'clock. The

115