AN UNUSUAL CASE

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2554, 31 August 1915, Page 7

AN UNUSUAL CASE

f IN THE CONCILIATION COURT / . K> ATTITUDE.OF BOAROINGHQUSEKEEPERS. By Telegraph—Press AE6oc£ation—Copyright Auckland, August 30. 0 'A most unusual oase came before , r the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr. T. e Harle Giles) this morning, when tho t boardinghouse-keepers of Auokland de-. s clined to proceed with tie dispute in i] which they 'had been cited by tho Hotel e and Restaurant Employees' Industrial j Union of. Workers. The union put forward a long list [. of claims, mainly in regard to wages, [_ hours, and conditions of labour. The e cmplyers' counter-proposals vero "Tho e employers do not recognise that there a is a, disputo before the Conciliation r Council, they do not admit any of the ►- claims of .the union, and they submit as their counter-proposals -that nor award shall bo matlo." j The Commissioner remarked that lie e had never had such counter-proposals y offered before. | t Mr. ,S. E. Wright, representing the ,j employers, quoted in support of the a counter-proposals, Section 73 of t!he |j Act. Before a. case could be filed, he 3 claimed, there had to be something in ; dispute, before the present proceedings . were instituted there had been no nep gotiations of any kind between the 1 Union and the employers, therefore,' i there was no dispute. Mr. T. Long, for the union, said tfhe . disputo had been in existence for six , .years. On two previous occasions it _ had been before the Court, furthermore . it was a, continuation of the dispute 3 tt'hicii _ had arisen in Wellington and 3 Dunedin; in botih those places the Court . had granted awards. Mr. Wright: "Wo are prepared to t submit this point to the Arbitration j Court,, but we will not arguo any.other . points in the meantime." t The Commissioner: "Section 35 is the 5 only clause of the Act which deals with tho point raised by the employb ers, it is admittedly vague, but it may 1 be taken for granted that if it were 3 necessary to define the way a dispute . is _ to ' originate the Act would contain that definition, but, after all, is > the point worth anything? Supposing , I were to declare that there is no dis- . pute it would only mean deferring tho i busmess for a certain time. As Comj missionor, Ido not think the employers r are justified in taking this course; after , all, it is only a quibble. The employers i nre ; I' think taking up attitude, and I am convinced that if , tile matter goes before the Arbitration ; Court the Judge will say so, and will , reier the matter back to the council: . Is it worth .while prolonging the . agonyP" i Wright: "A large meeting of . uoarduighoiise-keepers a few nights ago , discussed the whole matter, and passed , a resolution declining to admit a dispute, and declining to proceed with tho ! case before tho Conciliation Council, so we can go no further. Tho Commissioner: Had you not better psk for an adjournment and hold another meeting to reconsider tho matter? The Arbitration Court will decline to hear any case' in which an effort has not first been rondo to reach a settlement through the Conciliation Council.. The employers' assessors asked leave to withdraw and consider tho points • raised. On returning, Mr. Wright announced 'that there were such differences iu bc-ardinghouses that it would bo impossible to have an award governing them all,' consequently it would only be a waste of time to _ proceed witli the case now. The Commissioner: Under the circumstances I can only send the caso on to the Arbitration Court with a statement of the points ■ put forward, amd ah ■ intimation that the employers have refused to submit their ' case to tho methods of conciliation.