Brewery workers back ban on Richmond W.M.C.

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33979, 21 October 1975, Page 1

Brewery workers back ban on Richmond W.M.C.

The legal advisers of the Richmond Working Men’s Club are investigating moves that the club can take in its dispute with the Hotel Workers’ Association, and will be present when the club executive meets members this evening to discuss the position.

The dispute arose after 15 barmen were sacked on Friday. A ban has been placed on the club by the union. The secretary of the Canterbury branch of the Brewery Workers’ Union (Mr G. G. Walker) said last evening that his union would support the ban. This means that the delivery of beer to the club is imperilled. The club president (Mr M. C. Hart) said that his executive “was prepared to go a lot higher” because it felt that the union’s action was not justified. The club bar was closed at 7 p.m. yesterday because there were not enough staff. But the various clubs still held their usual meetings, and

the sports facilities were, open. The barmen who were sacked on Friday picketed the club yesterday. But while the pickets stood at the entrances to the club, union members were serving drinks from behind its bars. The club’s head barman, Mr G. A. Carson, said that union members from other clubs and hotels had been serving drinks since the regular barmen were dismissed after walking off the job on Friday. One of the reasons given for the black ban and the pickets by the union’s secretary (Mr C. C. McCready) was that the bars were being manned by club members, not union members. Mr McCready had not spoken to club officials since he "stormed out” of a meeting of the club’s executive on Friday night because of the presence of the club’s lawyer, said the president of the club (Mr M. C. Hart). “He did not say why he did not want the lawyer present. He just entered the room, saw the lawyer, and stormed out, all within 60 seconds. We didn’t get a chance to put our case.” Five minutes after Mr McCready left the meeting he left the premises, taking all of the barmen with him, said Mr Hart.

Club members manned the bars on Friday night, but union men had volunteered to work on Saturday and yesterday. Since then Mr McCready

had not made any approach to the club and the club had not approached him, said Mr Hart. Mr McCready has said that he did not want a lawyer present because "legal people are no part of the industrial arbitration system.” All conciliation talks between employers and employees in New Zealand involved laymen; legal people were never present. This was another reason for the ban. The third reason given by Mr McCready was that the club had advertised for barmen to replace the 13 who had been dismissed. Mr Hart denied that he was advertising for replacement barmen. "Last week we were two barmen short and we advertised to fill those positions. So far we have had no replies.” The dispute is over the employment of union members to "lock up” the club at the end of each night. Members were being paid overtime and an allowance for doing this. 1 The club had suggested that the head barman lock up, but because of protests from ' the barmen Mr Hart had sug- ' gested that two barmen should continue with these duties. Only one would be paid the allowance, accord- ' ing to the award. j Mr Hart said that this I proposal was made to Mr McCready last Wednesday and ' he had asked if he could

attend the meeting of the executive which would approve the proposal on Friday. Mr McCready said that without the overtime and allowance the barmen could not continue on the reduced wage. Mr Hart said that the barmen had the opportunity to work overtime on Saturday but they refused to do it. “Over the last six months the average wage of a barman at the club has gone up by $5 a week, and some wages by up to sls a week.”