THE HOTEL WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 842, 14 June 1910, Page 6

THE HOTEL WORKERS

DEMAND FOR MORE WAGES. - AND SHORTER HOURS. CASE BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT INTERESTING EVIDENCE. Tho Arbitration Court was occupied throughout the greater part of yesterday's sitting with tho hearing of the Wellington Cooks' and Waiters' dispute. Mr. Justice Sim presided, and Jlr. W. Scott (employers' representative) and Hr. J. A. M'Cullough (workers' representative) eat with him. - " Mr. E. J. Carey appeared for the Cooks' and Waiters' Union, and Mr. W. Pryor for the Wellington Licensed Victuallers' Association and individual licensed hotelkcepers in Wellington, Petorie and Hutt. Union's Demands. ■ Following is a summary of tho union's demands as to wages and other conditions :— Kitchen and Scullery Workers.—Males: :Where five or more workers are employed in or about the kitchen and scullery of any hotel a minimum weekly wage shall be paid to such workers us under:—Chef, or first hand, £o; second band, £3 55.; third hand, £2 55.; others, 355. Where four workeis ore so employed—Males : Chef,-, or first hand, £i 10s.; second hand, £3; third, hand, £1;, others, 355. Where three workers are so employed—Chef, or first hand, £i; second hand, .£2 10s.; third hand, 355. Where two are so employed—Chef, or first hand, £2 los.; second hand, 355. Where one worker is 'employed, £2. Females.—ln hotels where females are employed in tho kitchen or scullery, the minimum scale of pay for such workers shall bo in the proportion of not less than three-quarters of tho rates"- prescribed for males emEloyed in similar capacity in other otels: Provided always that no female shall be employed in a kitchen or scullery at less than a wage of 255. weekly. Dining-room Workers—Waiters shall be paid a minimum weekly wago of £2 10s.; waitresses shall be paid a minimum weekly wage of 275. Gd. Bars—Barmen ehall receive a minimum weekly wage of JC3, barmaids, £2 ■ Billiard-markers, £2 10s. Pantrymen shall receive a minimum weekly wago of ,£2; pantryraaids, 275. 6d. Night porters shall receivo a minimum weekly wage of JE2 10s. Porters—ln hotels where two or more porters are employed, one shall bo paid not less than J2 weekly; all other porters, 355. But,tons under 17 years of age, 15s. Other ;male workers not provided for and emjployed in hoteiis shall be paid a miniimum wago of 30s. weekly. Housemaids, £1 a week; laundrymaids, .£1 7s. Gd. Other female employees not provided for shall bo paid not less than -253. weekly. Hours and Holidays. In the matter of hours and holidays the union asks that:—"The hours of work for • all workers in or about any hotel shall bo as under:—No male worker over the ago of IS years shall be employed for a longer period than 56 hours in any one week; no female 'worker or youth under the',ago of. 18 ..'years for a longer period than 52 hours •in any ono week: uo worker , shall lie 'employed ' for a longer period than ■10 ihours iu any ono day; no worker shall ■be employed on any day after a period of 13 hours has elapsed from the time such worker commenced work. on any one day.' ' ■.''■■ ■ The working hours above prescribed, shall be worked on six days only in each iveek. Ono full day's holiday, in every week shall be allowed to each employee ■in every hotel; every worker substantially employed in hotel bars shall be ; lgiven Sunday as the full day off duty in each week. In the case of other, emIployees, the day shall bo at tho choice 'of tho employer. In addition to tho full (Sunday holiday, every .worker employed Substantially in a hotel bar shall be allowed a half-holiday on one of tho other isix days in tho week, from the hour [of .2.p.m. ' • ■ ' i The union is practically, asking for 'compulsory unionism in tho industry.

Employers' Counter-claims. . . -For their side tho employers are ask-' :, . ing for the reissue of. the present award, ■ . -'. which was made in January, 1908, with !•■;; . two-extra'provisions; ono allowing for i. ' V^-the extension of the eleven-hour day, provided overtime is paid, the other—. the Court's clause—providing for the ' - operation of the award only so long as ■ .... no legislation is provided affecting any . ' of the couditions theriu set out. ■ Oyster -Saloons. ;'■■ ,Mr. W. A. Grenfell mentioned the case of tho oyster saloon keepers, who aro paities to the present award, but have not been made parties to the dispute. He asked if tho Court could rule that, so far as they were concerned, the ;." ■ present awar'd would not bo superseded. : His Honour eaid the Court would connder to what extent tho new award would modify the old ia. this respect. •,.'.' • Union's Case Opened. Mr. Carey, in opening the case for the anion, said this was tho third time since - . its inception in 1900 that tho "union had ■;.■■.: come to'the Court to ask for better eon- : .- ditions. They had been practically forced' ■to do so on the present occasion because ■;/'■ .-■• the employers had refused to grant any ■.. concessions on the previous award. They ;7 : '.demanded increased wages, .shorter hours, ;.'<> imore regular holidays, a more effective j ■ ■.-.. preference ' clause.. They especially deV eired to get better wages for the lower- .-,; paid men, as they considered that the ~: _ ■ present award did not provide for a liv- :'(■:'■ wage. The long hours and the lack of holidays were regarded ■ as aai even greater grievance than tho loit wages. A : :. 65 hours week for women especially was ■considered too much ■.-'".•• Mr. Justice Sim: Tho result of the old ;..'•;. . ione was a constant successdou of cases '■'■'•■ if" , , I)reacn °f award, and it is desirable ~ _ that such friction should be avoided ».■:■-.- Mr. Carey: To follow that out would V,.. mean that if an award ie constantly ;. . broken it should be thrown out. ;,.. His Honour: I'think they simply blun- ■ . oered into the ..breaches. ''■ , . Evidence for the Union. .;, .. George Dyer, night poster at tho ■ •■Masonic Hotel,,said his wages w.ere 30s. »,week•' and a 2s> 6d. bonus every week. ■■■.■..' ..Hβ had been there nine months. Ho be- ■'■■ ■ 'gan as day porter at 255. a week, and " J? s n f. terwar ds made night porter at 275. . ■■;'.' ;Gd. He had a wife and four children. ■ . ■ . Un his present employment he got verv ;•■■ .few tips—not more than 355. in the nine . . . -months, and only os. since Easter, ss. ': of.that being in ono sum, and quite exHe wais in sole charge of . ihe hotel from midnight until 6 a.m. Ho :, . came on duty at 10 p.m. He got break- . . fast at the hotel, and took two meals at home. By way of weekly half-holiday ~; Sic only got from 10 to 12 ono evening in •tho week. , Keeping a Family. Beatrice Dyer, wife of tho last wit- , ness, also gave evidence. She said they paid 12s. Gd. a week rent. Her husband's ; . car fafo.:was Is. Gd. a week. Wood, coal, and light cost 35., bread 4s. to 4s. 6d., ..' ~ milk-2s. Id., butter 2s. Id., tea Is. 3d., T groceries, etc., 35., and her. husband's ; union subscription was Gd. Besides the four children, .they had a nephow living ,■■ with them. The total weekly income of the household was £2 2s. "One of the boys was working in a warehouse, and had to be fairly decently clnd. There was no money to give tho children fish, . poultry, cream, bacon, cheese, or sweetmeats. They had had no eggs for tho ;.'• last six months. Her husband had only had one suit during the 3 J years they had been in the country, and she had .. , epent only .€1 19s. Gd. on clothing for herself. She practically depended on ,'charity to clothe herself and the children. They lived chiefly on bread and (butter, stewed meat, and soup. "Baby's Welfare." Two of the children had been born in New Zealand. The medical expenses were .£9. She got the money by going out washing and cleaning prior to both occasions. The other children were left at home by themselves, and suffered in consequence. She also went out washing,

cleaning, and ironing, in order to buy a solving machine to alter clothes riven them by people. ' / Mr. Carey produced a red-covered pamphlet issued by the Public Health Department, and written by Dr. Agnes Bennett. It was entitled "Baby's Welfare," aud witness said it was given to her when she went to have her last baby registered. It slated that at twelve months' old a child should havo porridge or hominy made with milk, breadcrumbs, boiled eggs, stewed fruit aimmilk, etc.; also that at eighteen months old' it should have fish, fowl, or meat mixed with breadcrumbs. Witness said her husband's wages would not allow her to get all these things. John Stephens, hotel porter at the City Buffet Hotel, said he was a married man, and had ono child. Ho had been working at hotels for eleven, years, at 205., 375., and 30s. a week, and at the City Buffet for two weeks. He rented a furnished room for 10s. a week. His. wnges were 255. a week. The 10s. that was, stopped for his board would go further if Mrs. Stephens had it to spend. He saw no prospect of getting ' a home of his own on bis present wages. Wages, Rent, Etc. Charles Bilby, sculleryman at the Central Coffee Palace, said ho had a wiie aud two children. His wages were 225. Gd. He had been following hotel work off and on for four years. He had worked at the City Buffet for 225. Gd. as sculleryman, and 255. as porter. They paid 255. a week for a largo house, and sublet rooms for 15s. a week on an average. He had had to drop his insurance, and was not in any lodge. Neither he nor his wife had bought any clothing for themselves since he had worked as a sculleryman. His trade was the woollen trade, but ho found ho could not get into that iu Wellington without influence, and had to take any job ho could get. Henry Gill said that until a fortnight ago he had been employed for sixteen months as cook, and four months prior to that as porter at the Central Hotel, Lower Hutt. His wages as porter were 255. a week, and 395. as cook. He took the latter wage 'at his own suggestion,' and signed the wages book for £2, which was the minimum award wage. He was paying 18s. a week board for his wife und two children, aud his wife had to do washing and cleaning for the landlady. He left the Central Hotel because the licensee thought he could get a woman cook to do this cooking and the ironing also for 30s. a week. He was now out of work. He never missed one day's employment during his 20 months' work ,nt the hotel. If he had insisted on the award wago of .£2 he would have lost the job. James Stone, porter at Dealy'e -Kailwaj Hotel, Wellington, said he was a married man, but. had no children depending on him. His wages were 235. a week, and ho paid 11s. rent. He had been eighteen months at hotel work, and got the same wages at. his previous place at the' Shamrock Hotel. John Brocklebank, boiler-man at the Royal Oak, said he hod a wife and two children. He had previously been soullcryman at the same hotel, and earned then 225. Gd. a week cash, ss. lodging allowance, and 4s. Gd. for overtime. His wages now were 3Ss. Gd. a week. Ho worked 80 hours a week. He paid 17s. 6d. a week rent, and let rooms bringing in 10s. to lls. on the average. Before taking up his present job he was book-keep-ing at 13 guineas a month. ( Spsakintj Three Languages. Andrew Ebersold, waiter at the Eoyal Oak, said he had;been working there for four months.- His wages were 325. Gd, a week, he paid .£2 a week for a house. He sublet rooms, and that left him about 10s. a week to find out of his wages. He had been a waiter 1G years. He served his apprenticeship of two years at Strasburg, and he spoke three languages.When he was a waiter at the- Hampton Club in England ho earned £3 a week in wages and tips. He left owing to tho advertisement praising up New Zealand. He was married and had one infant child. His tips at the Boyal Oak averaged Gs. a week. His day's work began at G. 15 a.m., and ended at 8.15 p.m. He had worked in Belguim where they had a six-day week. '■'•'.. Thomas Haining, kitchenman at the Occidental Hotel for tho last three months, said he got 255. a week. He was married and his children were, grown up. Hβ had been boilerman at the Eoyal Oak and had worked 80 hours a week. His wages were not sucient to keep his wife pro-' perly, and they had some assistance from their children. Thomas J. Hurley, waiter at the Empire, said he got 30s. wages, and ss. room allowance. Tipping as a 'practice was dying out, and- he only took an averago of ss. a week in tips. Alfred Dienstbach, porter at the Albion Hotel, said his wages were. 30s. a week. ITe had a wife and.two children. His hours were less than.6s a week. He paid £2 ss. a week for a furnished house, and' his wife let rooms,. generally making enough to pay the rent. Hβ worked from 5 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and from 4.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., and had an hour each for breakfast, dinner and tea. The Preference Clause. Mr. Carey himself then gave evidence to show the effect of preference on tho membership of tho union. He stated that in 1908, when an effective preference clause was in force there were 81G members in the union. 'At present, with 1200 employees in the district, -there were only-,220 male and 12 female members. Witness also gavp particulars of the terms of awards in force in Australia. He said that in Sydney the ordinary hours were 58 per week with longer hours in certain weeks. Legislative provisions as to hours of work in different countries were also quoted.

"Tipping" Falling Off. James Cleveland, waiter at the Royal Oak, said his wages were 355! a week. He was'a married man, without children. He took about 6s. a week in tips. Since his first period of work at the itoyal Oak, moro than three years ago, the tips had' dropped off about DO per cent. Ten. shillings a week wae stopped from his wages for food, but he would rather have the money nnd get his meals at home. He never worked with a waiter who was New Zealand born, , and he did not know of one in Wellington at present who was a New Zealandcr. Most of them came from the Old Country, and some from Australia. The latter generally returned as soon as they could. To Mr.. Pryor: -Witness earned .£3 10s. a week and commission as an accountant. More Waiters. Richard Dawson, .waiter at the Empire Hotel, said ho had a wife and child. His wages were 355. a week. He paid lGs. a week rent. During the-last three months he had made ss. to Gs. a week in tips. He would be willing, like previous witnesses, to hnvo tipping abolished. William Henry Tout, waiter at the Empire, said ho received 355. a week. Ho paid 13s. a week rent. His tips averaged between ss. and Gs. a week. He had a wife and two children. Charles Bowen, waiter at the Royal Oak, said his wages we're 355. per week. He was married, but had no children. He paid 10s. a week for a furnished room. He had been head waiter at an hotel in Auckland. His tips came to sa. or Gs. a week. ■ ■ The Employers' Case. Mr. Pryor said the union had absolutely failed to show any reason for altering the award. The employers were asking for a renewal of the award, with one or two alterations. At present, waifers, cooks, kitchenmen, and pantrymen could not be employed more than 11 hours a day, even if they were paid overtime. Overtime w.ork was sometimes •necessaTV, and the union had realised this, and there had been no difficulty lately. The employers wanted to put into the award what had boon the practice. Tho position of the trado i-n Wellington at present was such that the employees wore not justified in asking for anything that would increase the working costs, but the employers would have been justified in' asking for that which would reduce the working cost. When the present award was made in 1907 the Christ- . church Exhibition was on, and there was something of a boom. The supply of hotel workers was sliont of the demand, and busntess all round was prosperous. The position had since altogether changed. 1£ tho union's claims were agreed to, it would mean bankruptcy for the employers. The hotel workers, so far as they came under awards, had received move concessions from the Arbitration Court than any other class of workers. ITours were reduced in 1902, and wero still further reduced in 1907. In regard fo the clause referring to possible 'future legislation, it would be un-

fair to Kβ oniplo.vcrs down to a set of conditions that might bo affected by future legislation, especially as Sir. Carey had admitted that whatever corXlitiona the Court might provide, the union would not be satisfied, and thus there was no prospect of finality. The union asked that tho award should apply to barmen, barmaids, billiard-markers, buttons, housemaids, and laundrymaids, but no evidence had been led with regard to these workers. K looked as if an attempt was being made to use the Count as a recruiting agent for the'union. The employers wore strongly opposed to any change in the preference clause. Under the clause- Which was in force before tho present ono there was no end of friction, and employers \v.ero persecuted—there was no other Word for it. Australia Again. Australian conditions had been quoted, but fuller information would be required if the precedents were to be of value. He noticed, however, in the New South Wales award, which he had only just seen, that waitresses were entitled to 12s. to 155., against 20s. to 255. here; waiters, 225. Gd. in New South Wales and 275. Gd. to £2 10s. here. If New South Wales conditions were to bo taken, they should take the bed with the good. It was well known that, throughout Australia, the close observance Acts and awards were not enforced as they were in New Zealand. The Staff at the Grand Hotel. John Beyeridgc, proprietor of the Grand Hotel, said it was absolutely necessary , that tho hands should be at call for 65 hours of the /week, but they were not working strenuously all that time. They might be sitting down waiting for bells part of tho time. From a quarter to three to 5 o'clock all but two men wero off duty, and all but two were off duty again in the evening. Overtime work was necessary at banquets, because they could not send the waiters home when their eleven hours was up and put fresh men on. He kept a staff for 120 guests; the average in the house was 50, but for considerable periods there were only about 35 guests. ' ' The Wages Bill. ■ Witness then read a statement to showthat theaUditiqnal cost that would be imposed upon his .business if the union's demands were granted would be J2IGG 113s. dd. per annum, making the total amount paid in wages during the year £7648 3s. dd. Tho house could not bo run on the boardinghouse business alone. It was the bar trade that showed, the profit. Mr. Justice Sim asked how boardingi houses carried on at a much lower tariff. Witness pointed out that there had been a number of failures in the boardinghouso business, anil in reply to Mr. Pryor he said that .the ljoardinghouses did not provide in the same style. Witness said he was the president; of tho Wellington Licensed Victuallers' I Association, and had acted for that body in the late conferences. Ho had had ~ Australian' waiters in his employ for as long as 3J years, and ho did not think they were moro anxious to leave' than others. ■ A Living Wage. Mr. Carey (in cross-examination): Would 255. a week be a living wage for yourself and wife and family?—l should have to accept it if I could get nothing better. . . Is it a living wage?—' Well, a man is living ou it. ■ • . ■ Is he entitled to keep a wife and family on his wage?— Yes. Is ho entitled to take his children to a picture show?—l don't like to say. . Is 225. Gd. a living wage for a sculleryman? Mr. Justice Sim: There is an allowance of 15s. -in addition. Mr. Carey: Do you say it is a living wage, or is it not?—Tho Court knows better thau I do. Tho Judge: It would bo a. living vrago for a single man, but is it so • for a married man? Onght a married man to bo doing that work? Mr. Carey: Does the existence of tho hotel trade depend on the employment of single men?—l don't quite follow you. The Judge: You have dS employees. How many of them are married ?—Very few. . ' Mr. Carey: Do you say that so long as you pay a living wage for single men you aro doing your duty?—l am working the thing as a business proposition, and if the Court lays down a wage, the employees havo to be content with that. If the Court adopts Mr. Justice Higgins's definition that a living wage is that which is sufficient to keep an adult married worker and his wife and family in frugal comfort, would you agreb to that?—l will agree to what tho Court says. Is' it necessary to have women working C 5 hours a week?— They very seldom do, but it is necessary to have them there. Witness said that the housemaids and other female employees got their work done in the morning, and in the afternoon they were lying down or doing their own sewing, and in the evening they only had to do occasional light jobs, and recoive guests: There, would be two girls lying down in the afternoon to one. who was.working. They came on at 7 a.m. and finished at 10 p.m.

An Unanswered Question. Sir. Carey: What rent are you.paying? Witness: Am I bound to answer that? The Judge: No. . You need not disclose your private affairs., Mr. Carey said that at one end of the business there were the breweries with big dividends, and at the other end hardship and privation. Wore the present conditions to be continued because certain hotelkeepers had made a bad bargain? If a new award was hard on Mr. Boveridge, the matter should be adjusted by him with the people who were making tremendous profits out of what ho sold.. He would have to go somewhere for relief. Mr. Justice Sim:. He might go to the Legislature and ask for an Act to lower the wages. Mr. Carey: I should go to the landlord, and ask for a reduction. You have got one of the hardest propositions in Wellington in the hotel business?—l recognise that. Mr. Justice Sim (smiling): Perhaps Mr. Carey will propose to exempt you from the award? . . ' AVitness: I should not, object to that. To -Sir. Pryor: He had had no complaint from tho I women workers. Ho could always get female workers, and he found that housemaids preferred hotel work to private service. Another Calculation. Joseph Dwyer,' proprietor of the Club Hotel, confirmed the evidence of the last witness, so far as it applied to his place. The union's demands, if'granted, would increase the loss on the boarding part of the business by. .€IBO per annum. Mr..Carey: If the brewers did not shovo on tho rents and goodwills so much, could /ou not give better conditions to tho employees?—l can't answer that. Mr. Carey said it was a well-known fact, though he could not get evidence of it, that incoming tenants were paying £6 and ,£lO a week more than the outgoing tenants. A union secretary seeking such information from the "Trado" agencies was bluffed and barred. : Mr. Carey; Do you think 275. Gd. a week for a man and his wife and children is a living wage ?—Probably not. But that is an exceptional case. Does the "Trado" depend for. its existence on employing single men?—lf a married man came along, he would not be excluded. I make no exceptions. Slackness of Trade, Frank M'Parland, proprietor of the Hotel Cecil, agroed with Mr. Beveridgo's evidence. He had a staff of 34 and the guests numbered about 40. Tho receipts, had fallen off sinco 1907. He had had no complaints from the female workers. To Mr. Carey: In his opinion the female employees did not work enough, nono of them worked G5 hours a week. He did not object to preference to unionists, but'ho would not have unconditional preference. Marshall John Donnelly, proprietor of tho New Zealander Hotel, sai/1 ho had accommodation for 35 to 40 guests, but at present there wero only three or four, lie had 13 employees. His gross receipts were £1500 less in 1000 tliau in 1908. Tho union's demands for higher wages would mean another ,£3OO a year to pay, but, including, the six-day week, the total increase would be .£SBG. Patrick Joseph Griffin, proprietor of tho Pier Hotel, also gave figures to show that hi* business had been decreasing. This concluded Oin evidence, and after Mr. Pryor and Mr. Carey had addressed the Couit, the...liearing was closed,