ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 45, 16 November 1907, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

COOKS' AND.,;WAITERS' DISPUTE. HEARI®LCpMMENCED..,v 1 ,'..' 'Tho Court resumed its'.sittiiigs yesterday morning. Mr. Justice--'Sim- (president) and Messrs. R. Slater .(workers' reprcsontativo) and S. Brown (employers' representative) took their seats at 10.30 o'clock. ■ • ■:: .' The hearing ,of..tho dispute between" the Cooks'-and Waiters' Union end'tho employers of thoncity.-of Wellington and immediate suburbs, was commenced.. ■ Mr. W. Pryor' conducted :the case for tho employers. Associated, with him wore Mr. H. J. Williams (representing tho Licensed Victuallers , Association), Mr. J. Godber (on behalf .of the' restaurant and 'tea-room keepers), and Mr, J. Fairway (representing tho oyster saloonkoepers). ; '. Mr. E. J. Carey (secretary), and Mr. A. Block (president) appeared on behalf of tho Union. ■-•■■■■ ' y ' ■■ - 1 : • ■-■•• : CONCILIATION BOARD'S RECOM- '■ MgNDATION, .. The Board recommended, inter, alia, as follows:— ■'""""■: ~.-.. -~i .... Hotels.—Tariff, 8 : s. and-over. • Wages— Kitchen: Fivo or-more'hands —Chef '£4.105., second £2 155., third £1.105., others £1 2s. 6d.; four hands—Chef £8 155., second-£2 55., others £1 2s. 6d.; three hands—chef £3 10s., second £2 2a. 6£, -'others- £l---2s. :6d:; Fomales—Head cook £3, "second'"£2, others £1. Waiters: Five or more—Head £2 155., second £2, pther.?'£l ,105.., -mess-room £1 55., head waitress £2, second £1 10s.', others £1. Pantry: First £1155'., others £I'ss.; females £1 os. Porters rHcad'(diiy) £1 10s., second £1 os., others £1'25."6d.,-head (night)-£1 10s., others £1 sa. .vTar-iff-.belpw'Ss.'.and.PV.er. 5s 1 . per day:"Kitchen: Four,or,mpro handsChef £3 10s., second £2, others £1 2s. .6:1.; throe hands—cHeF--£3 55:,--s'obohd< £1--155., others £1 2s. 6d.: two hands—chef £2 10s., second £1 10s.;..females—head cook £2..55., second £1 105.,. others £1. . .Waiters.: Head £2, others £1 10s.',' head' waitress £1 Gs., others £1. Pantry': Miiles £1 105.,' females £1. Porters: night: £1 7s ; - 6d. All other hotels:.^'.-.'Kitchen':., Chef £2 55.,.others £1 -us.; fcmalos—head £1.'10., others 17s. 6d. ' Waiters:' Head"£r v lss:,' others £1- 10s., waitresses■£l;''pa'ntry—females'l7s. M. Porters: Day"£l.ss.ynight £l-7s-..Gd. Board and lodging rto-be the same as in old award; hours io-.b0...p0 .per Aveek .and restricted; provision, to bo mado .for'a halfholiday; half-hoiidtiyto "bo given week for three weeks; , and >a erory fourth-Sundayphight porters to, recpivo ono wook each threoninontlis in lieu of weekly half-holidavi ~,. ,

■ Restaurants and Tea-Rooms'.—Wage's— Kitchen: Four oY-'morb" hands—chef- £3, second £2, others £1 25...Cd.;: three—chef £2 10s., second £1.10s:,. others .£.1.25, Gd. ;.two —chef £2 55., second £1 55.; oao —£2; females—head £I'los., second. £I','others 17s. 6d.; pantry—"pantrymen'£l'Gs.'i'pantrymaids 17s. Gd.;~ frnitcrS7'£l"7s:-6d;-,"-hoad waitress £1 2s. .Gd:, others 17s. Cd.; Hours: Males 65 per week, and females 52 per week, with restriction of daily working hours, and a weekly' half-holiday ; from. 1 -p.'ni.;: -Board and Lodging: Restaurants ■same-fts hotels';' tea-rooms —mealsvto< be.provided .while :prer misos open for business,,with further.reduc-. tion of 2s. Gd. per we.ok .if meals supplied on Sundays. ~ ■ ••• .■• . ■• . Oysteii Saloons;—Wages'— Etchen-:' Chef £3, second £2, others £1 2s. Gil., females— head £1 10s., otlicrs £1; waiters, £1 7s. Gd., head waitress £1 2s. Gd., others Trs. Gel.; pantry—nantrymon. £1 ,55., pantrymaids 17s. Gd., oystcr-opcnoivs; ,£!,,.155.; li-9.v l IMales 65 per week, fem.ajes, 52, per week' (between' 5.30 a.m. and B'p.nO'. 'Board 'aucT' lodging saino as for hotels' h'rid restaurants; 0,,-' '■ Gonoral Provisions. — Casual ; labour — Special occasions—Chefs ■BO's., i j;Sccqiid i ;2Os., others 155., waitresses 12s. 63'.,' waiters and pantrymen 10s. for three hours, 15s. for ovbr three hours; waitresses and pantryinaids 7s. Gd. for throo hours, JOs. fqrover three hours. Payment of wages'same as'under, old!award. Overtime—Timc : iiid-a-h'alf/rates,''in/excess of daily or weekly,;hours.; t0,.h0 granted to unionists! Uniforms" to be provided by employers. ".' . ""!' ;: '." "' " ; :

THE EMP.LO.YERS;.CASE. Opening on behalf of the employers, Mr. Pryor pointed out' that' the recommendation of tho Conciliation , Board had been tion nearly twolviT months. Tho' employers would domohstrativ.that-'ifV provisi'ons''jvere irksome, unjust]; : and,'to a corisfdcfabJc''fc tontj unworkablo. ' '<■-■>.• ■ ■■■ ■ His Honour: This recommendation appears to havo producecf nothing but broachos. Continuing, Mr" 1 , Prybr remarked .that .the Board bad admitted' that therb .were defects I and anomalies in the recommendation, which if' they had had the' power,'w.buld certainly have' boon reino'vcd.' ...Notwithstanding this fact, the Union* asked tho' Court to convert tho recommendation into an award, without amendment. '"Ttio 'old award, which was made after exhaustive investibation, in March 1902, and rcmaijjal in operation for four and a half years, had-given overy satisfaction. During that .period, not a case for breach of the award-/had.,-he understood; been brought. That;^jigt. k .must weight with tho Court. It was .r.tliC; best, proof of, the excellonco of tho uiward r .and of the work.,of tho Court. In 1904, an, award worded almost similarly, had, been;made:in the Auckland, district. While "in Auckland, lib had loarnod that no caso-s had been brought under it. '■■:..■-.•-..■■ ■'■ ■

Mr. Slator: There.is no one to enforce it now that tho Union'has ceased /to exist. .■ Mr. Prypr,, continuing,' : said that,-, -if any hardship had been ;inillic.ted on either'party by the provisions of the award, the matter would havo boon preferred to .the Board. As a matter "of.fact,...the,.term..of the award expircd'twelvOmpntlis "ago; yet no steps had been l taken to secure ; a-now award. Ho submitted .with; confidence, thattho reason why.no,,.casos..-had-,,hoon.brought there was bccause,.tlic,. award '.was... an. excellent ono.' The ;'employers felt',' therof ore, ' that they would-;havc bedii^iistifiod'in "asking the Court tonfenqw.tho old award. --It. would ho useless to go into the matter of how tho recommendation had worked. , SufEco ,it 'to kay that rib 'fewer tha'n,"'fifty 'cases for enforcement Itlftlor''"tlle fe'cbmmciitla'tidn' had beon set down for hoaring:.'at!:thirprosent' sittings, but owing to tho Court holding that tho recommendation was. invalid,, thoy had •been withdrawn. In f;heir counter-proposals, '-llie' employers"' had not suggested any drastic alteration's" in"' 'tho ratio of wages fixed by tho.roconimcndatioii. In fact, in many.,cases, ,the wuges -proposed: by tho employes, wpujd work .out to better, advantago to the , employees. '■With.'-refer-, enco to the question -of "classification', the employers had practically.,laclbntod the 'Provisions of tho old,.award, as they, could', not sec why any substantial changes should, bo made. The employers would accept tlio number of hours fixed—by tho reoommondation on condition that the hours of work were ■ not restricted. As was well-known to tho Court, meals had to be sorvod both early and late in hotels. In return for the concession tlio employers wero' tiilliiiE.' to give employees in hotels holidayS'-'as' fpjlows.i./riireo.days in throe months; six, (Inys-m six- months, , -or fourteen days iii"tw6lVo"inoiVfchs* t "-.pr pay: in lion thereof. The .employers; strongly objucted to tho demand for a half-holiday, Ho would like to point out that tho Legislature had not included-- hotels among'the ".establishments in which n half holiday must bo granted. Then,' agilin, 'the pmployors objected to the proposal;'thiit. certain''..hotel employees should, receive a full lioliday ovpry fourth Sunday, "as'.it" had' .been, foiuid . tlm't.' business w\'s disorganised as.a result, The employers wero also opposed, to the proposal that •iroference should be granted to -Unionists. Ho submitted that numbers of ivorkers preferred not to join the Union; also that character, appearance, and past'conduct were as important factors in, the engagement of nn employee as ability to do tho work. " ■' His Honour: The "Court has" held'that an omployor-is entitled'To'take into considbra- : tibn the trustWoVthinoss pf ■' im .'applicant , . In a recont case, '• where an eniplover' whs charged with having:! engaged 'an dmpTbycc who had been in his'sferi-ico previously When' the services of a Unionist wore available?' the Court held that, under tho circumstances, bo was quite justified in so doing. Mr. Pryor said that, although what His .Honour had said was auito correct, tho fact

was that wlien employers found themselves bound by tho ordinary proforonco clause they looked upon it ns compulsory rather than run the risk of prosecution. Mr. Pryor, continuing, said that tho employers could not see their way to allow workers in- icstaurants and tea rooms ss. extra for lodging allowance. In their opinion, the rates of wages proposed were more than equal to those paid to workers ill other businesses where the same amount of skill was required. The Court would bo asked to combine restaurants and tea-rooms under the Award owing to. the impossibility of differentiating between such establishments. With reference to oyster saloons, , the employers held that no half-holidi y should'bo-allowed, that the hours of daily work should not be restricted, and that the clause' relating to lodging allowanco should bo struck out. Tho employers were, ho said, willing to give the workers holidays at stated periods, or pay them in lieu thereof. ■ In conclusion, Mr! Pryor pointed out that those employers hud to cornpeto against Greek and Assyrian traders, who evaded the labour laws whenever possible.' . Mr. Carey: Wo ask leavo to- alter tho demand iii accordance with' the Shops and Offices Act.

His Honour: This is nothing to prevent you from putting forward that demand at a later stage. -

Evidence on behalf of the employers was giveii by J. Beveridso' (proprietor of the Grand Hotel),. M. J. Donnelly (proprietor of the -Now Zealander Hotel), XV. G. Ryan (head waiter of tho Grand Hotel), J. Ross (proprietor of Ross's Hotel), F. Newman (storekeeper), H. Crass (sub-manager Arcadia -Hotel)', P. Agar (sub-manager of the j Royal Oak Hotel), Mrs. Godber and Messrs. J. Godber, A. Corrignn, IT. "J. Williams, J. Doineheeh, H. C. Brice, and-J r ; Fairway. Case for tho Union. . . i Opening', on. behalf of the Union, Mr. Carey'assorted that proof of tho .equity of, the recommendations was to bo found jn the fact that so many employers had filed concurrence forms. After pointing put that ; there was a dearth of workers in the trade, Mr.'Carey intimated that lie would address . the Court at length at a later stage. : Dr. Patterson gave evidence.on behalf of the Union. Cross-examined, ho stated thnt an employee would benefit more from an extended holiday every now and then, than from a half holiday every week. V The.Court then adjourned until. 10.30 a.m. on Monday. Before tho Court rose, Hia ■Honour pointed out to Mr. Carey that onlj; Monday could be devoted to the dispute.