WORK IN PRIVATE HOTELS

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 45, 17 November 1936, Page 11

WORK IN PRIVATE HOTELS

40-Hour Week Claimed 656 HOUSES AFFECTED BY DISPUTE According to a statement on behalf of the employers, 656 establishments are affected by a claim made in the Arbitration Court at Wellington yesterday, by the workers in private hotels throughout New Zealand for a 40-hour week instead of a 44-hour week. The subject came before the court as the first clause for consideration in a partial settlement of a dispute between the parties. It had been arranged that hours be considered first and alone. The parties will decide on further procedure after the length of the week has been decided. The applicants were the New Zealand Federated Hotel and Restaurant Employees’ Industrial Association of Workers and the respondents were hotelkeepers throughout New Zealand. Mr. Justice Page presided, and with him on the bench were Mr. W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative), and Mr. A. L. Monteith (workers’ representative). Mr. F. G. Young appeared for the workers and Mr. W. J. Mountjoy for the employers. Comparison With Public Houses. Mr. Young said that in conciliation proceedings the workers’ representatives asked for a 40-hour week, and the employers’ representatives for a 44-hour week. The law provided that the court must grant a 40-hour wees unless that were impracticable in the industry. The workers felt that in the recent licensed hotels case it had been proved to the satisfaction of the court that the accommodation section, as well as the bar section, could function efficiently on a 40-hour week. Eleven weeks' experience of the 40-hour week in licensed hotels had shown it an unqualified success and the five-day week had been found by employers to be more convenient than a five and a half day week. Since the first private hotel award was made no distinction had been made between hours of work set out in it and in the licensed hotel award, with the exception of a private hotel award made in Wellington and Dunedin in 1909. The hours then fixed were 60 for private hotels and 65 for licensed hotels. Even then, the distinction wa s in favour of the private hotel workers. The two kinds of hotels were in competition. Effect of Half-holiday. New provisions of the Shops and Offices Act which applied to private hotels restricted the employer’s right to utilise a worker's services ou his or her half-day to the period before 1 p.m. The only economical manner in which the employer could comply with the new law was to employ sufficient permanent staff for the normal requirements of his business and also sufficient to relieve the workers on their halfholiday and whole holiday. The staff required to relieve the workers on the half-holiday would be sufficient to relieve them for the whole day, and therefore the advantage gained by private hotel-keepers if the court granted them the 44-hour week would be more imaginary than real. The peak load on the staff was for luncheon and dinner, and under the system now in vogue, which provided for a day and a half off a week for each worker, i.t followed that those workers were not available for luncheon and dinner on two days a week. Sufficient relieving staff must therefore be employed to replace those workers at each of.those meal times. Houses Previously Understaffed. The industry had been under-staffed for years, and workers had been terribly exploited, especially during the depression, he continued. Recent legislation and the activity of the Labour Department had caused practically a return to normal conditions. Staffs had been increased considerably, and in every instance where sufficient staff had been provided to comply with the Shops and Office.? Act the employer could observe a 40-hour week without additions to staffs. Mr. Young refuted the anticipated objection that it was in the interests of the Dominion to keep hotel tariffs down, by stating that New Zealand tariffs were as low as, or lower than, in anv other civilised country. The granting of the 40-hour week would be in line with all previous procedure.

Employers’ Case.

Mr. Mountjoy said the employers’ reasons for refusing to agree to a 40hour week were that conditions of trade had been so difficult that it would be impracticable to carry on the industry under the short week —it had been difficult to make it pay even under a 48-hour week—and that increased costs incurred by shortened hours and increased wages, together with increased

cost of commodities, had made it difficult to make houses pay. Further, it was contended that the legislators did not intend to apply the 40-hour week to private hotels, a section of the Shops and Offices Act, 1936, limiting the hours of employment in hotels and restaurants to 44 a week, excluding meal times, to eight hours a day and for not more than four and a quarter hours continuously without an interval for a meal. The Shops and Offices Act did not give the right to workers to make application for reduced working hours. It was submitted that the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1936, was general in effect, to be applicable to awards for workers not covered by statutes.

The industry had not in recent years been considered profitable, and evidence would be given to show that, apart from those who had failed in business, private hotel-keepers had had a long and difficult struggle. The reduction of hours from 48 to 44 had increased costs considerably. The cost of catering a head in one large private hotel had increased by 36 per cent, from January, 1936, to September, and since then food had become dearer. Raising of tariffs would drive guests away. Unsatisfactory experiments had been made in endeavours to save labour, including the deletion of midday meals and the serving of Sunday evening meals without waitresses, except to hand round tea.

Mr. Mountjoy concluded by pointing out the inflexibility inherent in the trade aud the necessity for maintaining the standard of accommodation for the tourist industry. Mr. W. E. Anderson, Auckland, also speaking for the employers, said the conditions imposed on private board-ing-houses should be as elastic as possible. In fact, there should not be an award, because those who were covered by the award were in competition with private families and very small board-ing-houses which were not covered by the award, and which existed in large numbers. Serious as the shortening of the week would be in private hotels, it would be much more serious iu smaller houses and at seaside and popular tourist resorts, where boarding-houses were in competition with motor camps. Evidence in support of both cases was tendered.

His Honour said the decision would be given quite soon.