ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 41, 12 November 1907, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

■ COOKS' AND WAITERS' RECOMMENDATION. HELD TO BE INVALID. Tho Arbitration Court resumed its sittings yesterday morning. Mr. Justico Sin) (president), Mr. R. Slater (workers' representative), and Mr. S. Brown (employers' representative) took their seats at 10.30 o'clock. Reserved judgment was delivered with respect to the applications for enforcements against Mrs. Thomas, of tho Railway Dining Room, charged with having committed a breach of the preference clause; Mr. Gilmer, of tho Royal Oak Hotel, charged .with having failed to give a half-holiday. to certain housemaids; Mr. Taylor, of the City Hotel, charged with having failed to allow a halfholiday to a waitress. Tho President, on behalf of tho Court, said that the Conciliation Board, on October 26, 1906, mado a recommendation for the settlement of a dispute between tho Cooks' and Waiters' Union, and certain employers, including tho respondents. The dispute was not referred to the Arbitration Cotirt, and, by virtue of section 59 of "The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1905," tho recommendation, if valid, now operated and was enforceable in tho same manner in all respect's as an industrial agreement duly oxeeuted and liled by tho 'parties. It was for breaches of the industrial agreement thus created that the respondents had been cited, and tho question which tho Court had to determine was whether tho recommendation of tho Board was valid or not. The recommendation contained provisions with regard to tho hours of work and wages of cooks, waiters and Other workers in hotels, restaurants, oyster saloons, and tea rooms. The following was the provision as to tho hours of work in restaurants: —"The hours of work in restaurants shall not exceed sixtyfivo.in any ono week, and, in the caso of femalo workers, they shall not exceed tho number of hours prescribed by "Tho Shops and Offices Act, 1904." Tho following hours shall bo between 5.30 a.m. and .8 p.m." Clauso 19 of the recommendation provided that tho hours of labour prescribed by clause 7 should apply to oyster saloons and tea rooms.. • It had been recently decided by tho Supreme Court in the case of Inspector of Factories v. Fairway and Jones that a restaurant was a "shop" within tho meaning of tho Shops and Offices Acts. 1904 and 1905, and'that, notwithstanding tlio recommendation of tho Board, section 4 of the Shops and Offices Act, 1904 made it unlawful to employ any shop-assist;)nt in a restaurant for more than 52 hours, excluding meal times, in any ono week. It was now contended that the: effect of this decision was to establish that, so far "at least as tho keepers of restaurants woro concerned, tho whole recommendation of tho Board was invalid and unenforceable. ■ , In view of tho term of section 59 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1905, tho Court thought that, for the purpose of considering the question of the validity of the. recommendation, it should treat tho recommendations exactly as if it had, been an industrial agreement made between the Union and tho several employers named therein, and which, if valid, was binding on every member of the union by virtue of section 2S of the Act. Treatiug it in that way, it .amounted then to an agreement by the union and tho members thereof who, in consideration of the re-staurant-keepers agreeing to pay not less than tho wages- set forth in the recommendation ,the members of tho other than female workers, would, when employed in restaurants, work for 65 hours in every week, if required by their employers to do so. This, agreement on the part of tho union and its members was tho solo consideration for the agreement by tho employers to pay tho wages set forth in the recommendation and to carry out tho other provisions thereof. But an agreement by a shop assistant to work moro than 52 hours in ono week in a restaurant forbidden,, according to the decision of tho Court, by tho Shops and Offices Act, 1904, and it followed therefore, that, as the consideration for the agreement by the employers was unlawful, tho whole agreement was void. The Court held, therefore, that ' the recommendation as far as it related to' restaurant-keepers was invalid and could not bo enforced. It followed from tho reasoning of Mr. Justice Cooper in the caso of the Inspector of Factories v. Fairway and Jones that oyster saloons and tea rooms were also "shops" within the meaning of tho Shops and Offices Act, and, as tho hours fixed by tho recommondation for these wero the same as for restaurants, the result was that,tho recommendation was. invalid as far as it related to oyster saloons and tea rooms. The Court then proceeded to deal with the question of tho validity of the recommendation >as far as it relatod'-to licensed hotels, which wore, it pointed out, not "shops" within the meaning 1 of the Shops and Offices Act, and tho provisions of section 4 of the Act of 1904 did not apply to workers employed in hotels. . Tho provision in the recommendation in connection with hotels that,, for all workers, a week's work should consist of 65 hours was, therefore, lawful and t-hero would liavo been no. question as to tho validity .of the recommendation had it dealt only with the subject of hotels. The Court thought that the provisions of tho recommendation with regard to hotels could not be treated as separate' and distinct from the other provisions thereof, and that hotelkeoper's must be treated as having agreed to accept tho recommendation upon the implied condition; that tho keepers, of restaurants, oyster saloons, and tea rooms should be bound by tho recommendation so far as it related to them. They competed in business to some extciit with hotel-keepers and it was reasonable to conclude that hotelkeepers would not agreo to 'be bound by stipulations as to hours of work and wages if restaurant keepers; etc., wore not bound in a similar way. It. was true that tho employers affected did not intend to accept tho recommendation, and it was only through a misunderstanding that tho dispute was not referred to this Court. That fact, howlover, did not affect in any way tho legal result of their omission. The recommendation must be construed in exactly the samo way as if all tho parties had deliberately agreed to accept, it, and, as the Court had already said, must bo ' treated as if it wero an industrial agreement made by the parties themselves. _' The Court had held that the recommendation. was invalid so far as it related to restaurants, oyster saloons, and tea rooms, and thought that, as the basis upon which hotelkeepers must .be treated as having agreed to accept tho recommendation had been thus taken away, they should not be held to be bound by the recommendation. Tho case seemed to be similar ill principlo to those in which it had been held that where a surety had executed a document in tho belief derived from tho form of tho document that it should bo executed by all the sureties named as such in tho document as persons who wero to sign, ho was relieved from his obligation if all tho others did not sign. Tho eases of Hansard v.. Lethbridgo (8, I.L.R: 346), and tho National Provincial Bank of England v. Brackenbury (22 I.L.R. 797) wore illustrations of the application of that principle. Tlio Court held that the recommendation must bo held to be invalid as to all classes of employers affected, thereby. Tho application for enforcement against tho respondents would bo dismissed, an<:l on the thrcei cases against Mr. Gilmer, which were brought by the union, tho union would bo ordered to pay £5 5s costs. Mr. Aldridgo, who appeared, for the Labour Department, was granted loavo to withdraw fifty other eases, and Mr. Carey, who ropre- , sonted tho Union, was allowed to withdraw one case. FINE REMITTED. On tho suggestion of tho Court, tho case against A. Naanstcad, proprietor of tho Shamrock Hotel, who was, ou Monday fined £2, with costs, for having ■ engaged a nonunionist cook when there wore competent mombors of tho union available, was reopened and tho order cancelled. COOKS AND WAITERS', DISPUTES. Mr. Prior appeared for tho employers in tho Cooks and Waiters' dispute, and .Mr. Carey for tho union. His Honour asked Mr. Prior if tho employ-

crs bad submitted their proposals in writing i to tho union. • , Mr. Prior'said that the employers had i hoped that the Union would modify their dc- ] ninnds. Tho employers would submit their proposals forthwith. , His Honour suggested that tho parties should hold a conference. " ■ i Tho representatives of the parties agreed to confer and repoit to the Court on Thursday morning. His Honour pointed out that if -the parties failed to agree they would-.have to bo prepared to go on with tho hearing of the dispute on Friday. In reply to Mr. Prior, His Honour stated that, in the. eventof the dispute, coming before tho Court, the employers would have to begin. APPLICATIONS TO ADD PARTIES. An application for leave , to add parties in connection with the Saddlers' .dispute' was held over , until Monday., Tho American Tailoring Company and Macnienamen Bros, were added as parties to the Tailoresses and Pressors' dispute. Forty-two firms were added as parties to the Carpenters' dispute. . ELECTRICAL WORKERS' DISPUTE. Tho Court was asked to fix a dato for the hearing of the Ejoctrical Workers' dispute. His Honour said that it was doubtful whether tho dispute could be taken at this sitting. . Mr. Grenfell requested the Court to postpone tho hearing until, tho nest sittings,: owing to the illness of Mr.. Stuart. Richardson, electrical engineer for tho Corporation, who had been cited as a party. His Honour said that, if there was' time, the dispute would be heard on Monday, otherwise, it would not bo taken until tho next- sitting. ■ BUILDERS' LABOURERS' DISPUTE. The hearing ..of tho ■ Builders' Labourers' dispute was then proceeded with. Mr. W. A. Grenfell (secretary of tho Employers' Association), and Mr. \V. H.. Bennett (president), appeared for the employers, and Mr. iC J. Lyons (secretary of the Onion), together with Messrs. F. lJrow,n (president), arid li'. 'P. Jones (treasurer), represented,tho union... On the application of Mr. A Ferguson (secretary), tho Wellington- Harbour Board was exempted so long as it did not pay Jess than award rates, nor work builders' labourers, in its employ longer hours than those fixed by the award. Mr. Lyons applied to have the. Gear Meat Company added to the list of employers in the matter of the Builders' Labourers' dispute., r . , . His Honour said tho company had been struck out-by the Conciliation Board. Mr. Lodder, on behalf of the company, undertook to observe the terms of the. award in work where builders' .labourers were necessary. In repairing and small additions, however, builders' labourers were not .required, as the work could bo done .by .-the company's own men at Is. an hour.. For work on large now buildings they were prepared to pay the rate fixed by the award. This undertaking was accepted /.by . tho union's representative. . The company was added ;to the list, ■ but exempted Irom the award'so far as repairs and small additions were concerned. ' The Carrara Ceiling Company were exempted from the award so far as related , to work done inside their : factoryi In opening the - case for- the men, Mr. Lyons said it was fully nino months sinco thoy approached the employers-and endeavoured to settle tho- dispute. '- They had tried all thoy could to avoid coming to Cmirt, but the employers" had. treated them ..with contempt. Wh'en before the Conciliation Board the employers practically failed to put in an appearance. At a meeting of fifty or sixty members of tho.union subsequently, it was deiided to reject tho Board's recommendations because thoy had not had fair representation. The old award was quite obsolete;' and was more a drag on them than otherwise. The work, he contended, was 1 skilled-" and dangerous,^and entirely casual; therefore their demands were quito reasonable. The rise in the prices of things was such that tho recommendations of the Board would not put the wages on a reasonable footing. Building trades labourers in Sydney and Melbourne were treated much better, both as regards wages and conditions. The union objected to employers asking for a special rate for men who went on to a building for the, first time, as such men were used • as a lever to retard tho progress of the other workers. As to overtime, the men considered it was quite unnecessary. The clause for sanitary conveniences was absolutely necessary. _ They accepted tho old preference clause without demur. He asked, his; Honour to be definite as to the wages clauso, so as to remove any ground for friction in the. future, and .pointed out that after tho award made in the General Labourers' dispute, the. City Council had to hold a conferonco to decide as to wages. ' He again protested against the tactics of the employers in forcing the matter into Court. ~. . . J. H. Short,' clerk of works, gave evidenco that, there was. a certain. amount of skill attached to a builders' labourer's work. He would prefer to employ experienced men. In his opinion a tradesman should not'be, called, 1 upon to do labourer's work..' A young mail should bo, efficient, at. 19 years. The work was skilled^. dangerous, and casual. , .. To Mr. Gronfell: A bricklayer's labourer should become skilled ill a'week or so. > In other branches an employeo would not become skilled in . a much longer period. Henry Barrett, clerk of works, said that a skilled'labourer was worth .as much as a carpenter. He did not think labourers ror ceived enough in wages. There had always ueen sanitary conveniences on work lie had been'on. , . JohirGeorgcson, clerk of works, and John Davidson, clerk of works, gave evidenco iii general favour of the. union s demands. Joseph Brown and Tlios. Ryan, builders' labourers, gave evidence unfavourably contrasting the local, state of affairs with conditions in Melbourne and Sydney. Frank Brown, builders' labourer,, gave evidence .as to the increased cost of living'. He did not drink or spend money in luxuries, but it was as much as lie could do to meet current expenses, and ho and his wife had to pinch and screw to do that. Further evidence iii support.of.the Union s demands was given by Henry Hall, James Brockie, F. J. Lyons, E. H. Jones, H. G. Asliendon, T. Walsh, and C. Latham (all builders' labourers). This closed the case for the Union... Oil behalf of the employers, Mr. Grenfell said that, in ; preparing their , counter-pro-posals, the. employers had endeavoured' ti cover tho same grounds as the Union. The employers . wished the Court to retain the rates pf wages. paid aty the present timp. Although the minimum rate>might be somewhat low, it had to be remembered that the employers always paid their men more if tliev wore worth it. If tho minimum rate were made higher, it would mean that nearly all the men would be placed on the same level. Tho employers were agreeable to payoove r time at tho rate of time and a quarter for tho first two hours and time arid a half thereafter. In.Otago and Canterbury timo and u quarter was paid for tho first four hours. The allegation that the cost' of living was higher in Wellington was met by the. fact that higher wages were paid here than in tin other centres.' The employers wished ■ the Court to fix the same holidays as had beo.i fixed in .the Carpenters',. Plasterers', and Bricklayers' awards. The Court: would be asked to insert- a now clauso providing that a holiday might.be observed on a date otlior than that on which it falls. , In view of the fact that there had been a great deal of friction with the representative of tbe Union, and that vory frequently, incompetent men wcro- supplied b.v the Union, the employers objected to the insertion of a clause giving preference to unionists. If the Court decided to grant. preference, the employe s wished that the words "The worker must be known to the employer " should be inserted, and that tho clauso should not apply in the case of men employed for Jess than a week. Any information jelating to wages should, the employers thought, De collected by the Labour Department, and not by the Union. In. conclusion, Mr. Gronfell stated, that it was the opinion of the employers' that,ample space was already provided for the purpose of a change room. James Trevor, contractor, ; 'gavo evidon;e that he had a hundred • men, including twenty-five builders' labourers, in his emplov If a man wore worth more than the award rate he always received more. He did not consider builders' laborers' York to be

dangerous. Not much, overtime was being worked just;now. Aiiy, man. of ordinary intelligence ' could do the work of a builders' labourer, except scaffolding. _ Walter L. Thompson, contractor, said that the award which had boon ill' forco during th« past few years had worked . fairly satisfacTbe,preference clause.would hamper him if .he required men in a hurry. ■ _ re Mr., Lyons: He had. never .had any friction . with the. representative.! of' tho Union because he never allowed hinron his jobs.; . Alexander Campbell, contractor,, said .it' had ueen his .experience that the men were °ny too willing, to work overtime; • .Hi Bennett, contractor, and president; of the Jniilders Association;' gave evidcnco that overtime required to -be worked afc times. . . •; . . To .Mr. Jones: Kc always empWo'l unionists when they were,availably. ' The Court- intimated that it .would- take time to consider its judgment.