COURT Of APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 241, 6 July 1920, Page 6

COURT Of APPEAL

HOTEL WORKERS' HOLIDAY POWERS OP ARBITRATION COURT Tho Court of Appeal commenced its sittings yesterday. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman presided, and with him were associated Jlr. Justice Sim, Sir. Justice Stringer, and Mr. Justice Herdman. Tho first case taken was a matter affecting an award made by the Arbitration Court on August C, 1911), in tho Wellington district hotel, club, and restaurant workers' dispute. In. stating the case for the opinion of the Appeal Court, His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer stated that in tho course of the hearing of the dispute it was proved that in Bonie of tho hotels (the occupiers of which were to bo brought under tho provisions of th° award) tho number of persona ordinarily employed was less than five (other than the occupier and the members of his family). It was contended on behalf of the occupiers of the hotels that, in view of the provisions of the Shops and Offices Acts, the Court had no power to grant workers in such hotels one full day's holiday iu each week, as it was asked by the union to do. The Court held (1) that tho special provisions of the Acts referred to did not limit or restrict the general powers of the Court under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts to regulate tho hours of work of the workers in the hotels, provided that such regulation was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Shops and Offices Act; and (2) that there was no such inconsistency in granting the workers one full day's holiday in each week. Accordingly the Court'provided that one full day's holiday in every week should be allowed to eneh worker in every hotel covered by the award. . * Tho question for the opinion of the . Court of Appeal was whether tho Arbitration Court had jurisdiction to make | the provision regarding the holiday. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. A Pair m junior counsel, appeared for tin employers, and Mr. P.. J. O'Regan for the union. Mr. Skerrett submbitted that the Ar-bitration-Court had no power to fix a whole holiday in lieu of a half-holiday in eases where less than five persons, other than the occupier and the members of'his or her family, were ordinarily employed. He contended thaithere .was a prohibition of the exercise of the Arbitration Court's jurisdiction in tho'ease of the hotels under notice; also, that the award was inconsistent with the rights of hotelkeepcrs under sections G, 7 and 8 of the Shops and Offices Act, 1910, and placed all classes of hotels under the same conditions which, it was submitted, was clearly not the intention of the Legislature in passing the Act of 1910. The Shops and Offices Act, 1903, gave the right to a hotelkeeper vto give a half-holiday each week, or n whole holiday in every fortnight; but tho Arbitration Court had awarded | a whole holiday in each,. week, which was "clearly inconsistent with the meaning of the Act." Mr. Justice Herdmnn: Can not the Arbitration Court, by virtue of its general powers, give what holiday it pleases? Mr. Skerrett; The consequences of so construing the Act would be very drastic. ' First of all, the Court could fix a day for the half-holiday. Mr. Justice Herdman; That would be inconsistent with the Act, which says .that a poll shall fix the day. / Mr. O'Regan submitted that if section 8 of the Act of 1913 had never been passed, the Arbitration Court would have had, in its discretion, power to provide in any award for a holiday. The offect'of section 8 was to make it mandatory on'the Court to award a, whole holiday unless the Court was satisfied that i't was not. reasonably practicable so to do. Under section 9it was not. mandatory to proscribe a Whole holiday in the case of the class of hotels or restaurants referred to, but, nevertheless, the Court might, in its discretion, prescribe a whole holiday. The sections quoted provided only for minimum holidays, and it was not inconsistent for the Arbitration Court to grant jmore than the minimum. i Mr. Justice Stringer: The Factories Act provides for certain minimum holidays, and surely it is not inconsistent for the Court to provide more than the minimum. Mr. O'Regan: Exactly. Mr. Justice Channian: There are provisions in some Acts relating to the minimum conditions of work of apprentices, but you could not get them at the price. After further argument the Court reserved its decision.