WOMEN WORKERS IN TEA ROOMS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17293, 3 November 1921, Page 2

WOMEN WORKERS IN TEA ROOMS.

■ CHBISTCHUKCH CASE DISCUSSED ! IN HOUSE. 1 (SPECIAL TO PBESS.") WELLINGTON, November 2. In the House to-day Mr Isitt again brought up the question of women employees who were working part time in •the Beresford tea-rooms, Christchurch, having to leave such employment owing to the action of the union secretary. Mr Isitt asked if the Government wbuld have. enquiries made as to whether or not the union secretary had exceeded, his duties. He read a letter stating that one of the women had a family and an invalid husband to support, and she had gone into the tea rooms for a few hours a day, but the secretary of the union had notified that she would have to be paid a full week's wage. The proprietor of the tea-rooms stated that a strong protest had been made, but the " secretary of the union was adamant. He had therefore,' to his sorrow, to dispense with the service of the woman. She had never worked after 9 p.m. Mr Massey said he was not competent to answer the legal question as to whether or not the union secretary had ex-, t-eeded his powers, but he personally eould now agree with the action of the secretary. If there was anything he could do to prevent such trouble in the future he would be very glad to do it. Mr E. J. Howard later asked the Minister of Labour if he would produce the full file with the copies of complaints iaid against the Beresford tea-rooms in connexion with breaches of award during tho last twelve months, which, lie said, would include the one the member for Christchurch North had dealt with that afternoon, and which was not true, as stated by the hon. member. What he asked for would be fair to everyone, and he was sure that the Prime Minister would then withdrew the statement he liad made regarding the union secretary. Tha Hon. G. J. Anderson (Minister of Labour) said he had gone into the question thoroughly, and was perfectly satisfied that the union secretary was in the wrong. The woman was a very deserving woman, who was trying to earn a living for herself and family. He did net hhime the secretary, because he supposed lie was doing what he thought was best for his union. The fact remained that two women who were getting a living under difficult cifcuiristances were, at his instigation, caused under the award to leave their, employment, and to get employment in another place, where he understood, they were now working under the union award. Mr Howard gave notice that he would move for the production ■of the file referred to