DISPUTE ADJOURNED

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 266, 5 August 1932, Page 5

DISPUTE ADJOURNED

Private Hotel Employees J NO AGREEMENT SO FAR After a day and a half of discussion c in Conciliation Council, no agreement has been reached in the dispute between the Dominion private hotel workers and employees. At noon yesr terday it was decided to adjourn the _ proceedings until August 16. The meeting began on Wednes- , day, the following being the as- , sessors: —Employers: Messrs. W. 3 J. G. Hughes (Wanganui), W. ' J. Hogg (Timarp), W. Grimsdale (Dunedin), S. Jamieson (Christchurch), T. G. Lewis (Christchurch), - A. A. Brown (Auckland), D. F. O’Reil- ' 1 (Wellington). Employees: Messrs. 1 F. G. Young (Auckland), K. A. Brooks (Christchurch), H. O’Malley (Weli lington), M. J. Kelly (Dunedin), J. ■ Goodall (Greymouth), A. Carpenter ■ (Nelson), R. Fulton (Taranaki). Mr. W. J. Mountjoy, of the Wellington Employers’ Association, acted as advocate for the employers, and Mr. J. Roberts appeared in similar capacity on behalf of the employees. The acting Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. W. Newton presided. The principal clauses in dispute were those relating to wages, and discussion on rates of pay occupied the greater part of Wednesday. On behalf of the employers Mr. Mountjoy said reduced wages were being offered simply because the employers could no longer afford to pay at the existing rates. A Recipe for Prosperity. At a later stage in the proceedings Mr. Roberts argued that the financial position of the employers was a direct result of the policy of wage-cutting in other industries. “If the 10 per cent, cut was restored,” he said, “we would return toward prosperity to the same extent as we lost .it twelve months ago.” ' ' Mr. Jamieson: Do you. suggest that if the private hotelkeepers, were to pay higher wages all would be well with the community? Mr. Roberts: The point is that somebody has got to start. Mr. Jamieson: And must we go bankrupt in starting it? “All this is very interesting," said the Acting-Commissioner, “but we are getting away from the point. It must be remembered that we are discussing wages, in only one industry and dealing with a particular set of proposals within that industry.” A general discussion embracing the spending power of the people, price levels, and the'Ottawa Conference was. developing when the Acting-Commis-sioner halted It and brought the council back to the clause actually before it—a question as to whether private hotel employees should have seven or nine days’ holiday. The. afternoon was devoted mainly to a discussion of wages clauses which will be further dealt with this morning. Employers Could Not Accept The meeting was adjourned until yesterday morning without any agreement having been reached. When council resumed Mr. Mountjoy said that the employees’ amended proposals represented so slight a departure from the old award that the employers could not accept them. Referring to a proposal to adjourn . the meeting, Mr. Mountjoy said that this would be useless as none of the employers’ assessors would attend. Mr. Roberts said the licensed hotel workers’ dispute was to be discussed on the following day. He suggested it would be better to let that case be taken first in case the deadlock in the other should prejudice it. Mr. Fulton moved and Mr. Young seconded that the dispute be referred to the Arbitration Court, but the motion was lost. Mr. Young then moved and Mr. Kelly seconded, that the ’ meeting be adjourned. The decision to adjourn was made on the casting vote of the acting commissioner. In reply to Mr. Mountjoy, who again stated that the employers’ assessors would not oe present, Mr. Newton pointed out that the cancelling of an award affecting some thousands of workers was important. If the employers’ assessors were still of the same opinion, a condition could be made that representation be limited to two or three on each side.