Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


BOAEDINGHOUSE AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES. SWEEPING DECISION BY COMMISSIONER. """"" ALL BUT FOUR NAMES STRUCK PUT. ...... The adjourned sitting of the Conciliation Council in the application of the Auckland Hotel and LRestauflafrit employees' Union against the private hotels and 'boarding-house proprietors in the City of Auckland and suburbs was held this morning, Mr. T. Barle Giles (Commissioner) presiding, the assessors being Messrs. Geo. Usher and A. A. Brown for the employers, and Messrs. Geo. Phillips and E. N. Keeami for the employees. The Commissioner opened proceedings by -stating that at the last sitting he had suggested that a conference should be held to see if an amicable settlement could s not be arrived at. He had heard nothing- further of any such conference, and he presumed, therefore, that nothing . had come of the suggestion. Mr. T. Long thereupon announced that he appeared for the applicants for the sole purpose of stating that they were sorry that an opportunity had not been given them to meet the employers in .conference. He understood ■tihe Commissioner to say at the last sitting that he himself would endeavour to make arrangements, and would acquaint the Union with the result, so that he (Mr. Long) could get an expression of opinion from the members of his Union. He had been expecting to hear from someone respecting a conference since the last sitting, but nothing had transpired whatever. "Were a conference to take place," said Mr. Long, "the employers, Jam sure, wou'd find us very reasonable in the matters under dispute." If there had been a misapprehension as Mr. Long implied, returned Mr. Giles, ' there was still time to have the conference if it were so wished. He had, however, distinctly understood Mr. Long to state that he would consult with his 1 committees at the sitting, and in any event he had had ample opportunity to do so and communicate with himself on th 0 subject had he thought fit. Neither Mr. Long uor Mr. C. G. Knox, who appeared for the employers, had' ■ any further suggestion to niaice respect- ' ing a conference. The Commissioner then went on to say that in proceeding with the case, he had first to consider the question •of those already cited. "The Arbitration 1 Court hae taken up this position in regard to private hotels and. boarding houses," continued the Commissioner. , "In the Canterbury 'Hotel and' Res' tau rant Employees' Dispute, filed on the , 13th of October, 1808, and heard by the ( Court on the 9th of December, 1908, application was made to join certain private hotels and boarding houses in t Christchurch, Timaru, and Ashburton ac parties to the award. The operation of the award," eaid Mr. Justice Sim, "was limited in the first -instance to employers carrying on business as licensed hotel-kteepers n'ithln certain licensing 1 districts. When the present application , came on for hearing, the Court indicated that employers other than licensed hotelkeepers would not be made parties to the award, even if they did not appear to object, unless the union could establish that it was just and reasonable to join them." The hearing was adjourned' to enable evidence to be called on*the subject. Evidence was called by the union and some of the employers. The conclusion of the Court is that proprietors of private hotels and boa-rdinghouses should not be brought under the award." "Again, on the 17ch day of February, 190!), the Otago Hotel, Restaurant, and , Boardiiisrhouse Employers applied to the Arbitration Court for an award, and here again the Court distinctly laid down that the operation of the award was limited to the parties named therein. It wn<3 not intended to operate as an award dealing generally with the business carried on by keepers of private hotels and boardinghouaes, and the provisions of subsection 3 of section 90 of "The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 100S," would not apply to ■ this award. The. award bound only such ' other persons ac might bond' 'licre- ' after as parties thereto by urt. "That, to my mind, consti , ire- ' cedent wihch I should follow. for '■ this reason, that if I failed to m<! • tiie course of procedure laid down by the ' Court of Arbitration, it is reasonable to i assume that no settlement of this dis- ■ pute would be agreed to while it was ' before the Council in order that the ag- ■ grieved parties might take the opinion of the Arbitration Court upon the very j question which it has already decided and I assume it would re-affirm. Now I require to be satisfied that it is just and reasonable that all the parties cited other than the proprietors of:—Whitehead's Coffee Palace, Cook-street; People's Palace (Capt. Toomor), Wellesloystreet E.; Gladstone Coffee Paiace (H. Hawkin), Quay-street; Albert Coffee Palace ("Mrs Nelson), Viotoria-stTeet E. should be joined. I retain these four parties because it is within my own knowledge that they combine the businesses of restaurant and boarding-house keepors. As there is no ovidence tendered upon this point, I accordingly strike out tho names of all the parties cited stive and except the four I have named,. This power is confirmed upon mo Section 38 of the Amending Act of 1908. Having therefore Hottlerl the parties who are before tho Conciliation Council I havo now to ask whether anyone Is, prepared to tender evidence In support of tho applicants' demands,'' Mr Long i Mr Chairman, I weuid like to draw your attention to the fact that the private hotel proprietors In Wellington are bound by the Wellington award. Mr Giles i Well, I fiave two precedents to go upon and I shall not change from my determination, I may )iere point' out that my action in striking out in the manner I havo done does not prevent the Union from applying to the Judge of the Arbitration Court to join those parties in the award, if they think fit." Mr Knox; In the event of the Union not being prepared to give evidence to shqw cause why these people should be left in, I am prepared to tender evidence to show why they should be left out. 3>ir Giles: Under the circumstances, that is quite unnecessary, There is nothing to answer. The qtiestion of recommendations was then put to the assessors, none of whom, however, had any recommendation to advance, and the Commissioner said that he would in the ordinary way send in the notification to tHe Arbitration Court, together with the records of the proceedings. The Council then rose.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

CONCILIATION COUNCIL., Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 75, 29 March 1909

Word Count

CONCILIATION COUNCIL. Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 75, 29 March 1909

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.