HOURS IN CAFES

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 46, 18 November 1936, Page 12

HOURS IN CAFES

Workers Claim Forty a Week OPPOSITION BY EMPLOYERS Arguments and evidence for and against restaurant: and tearoom workers throughout; New Zealand working a 40-hour Week were heard by the Arbitration Court at Wellington yesterday, Decision was reserved. The applicants were the New Zealand Federated Hotel and Restaurant Employees’ Industrial Association of Workers, represented by Mr. F. G. Young, and the respondents restaurant and tearoom proprietors throughout New Zealand, represented by Mr. W. J. Mount joy.

Mr. Justice Page was on the bench, and associated with him were’Mr. W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and Mr. A. E. Monteith (workers’ representative). Mr. Young said that a variety of establishments came within tlie scope of tlie award. There were Hie large catering establishments which specialised in lunch and morning and afternoon tea, and closed before 0 p.m., except for Friday night tea. while they did practically no business on Saturday. They would suffer no hardship from the introduction of the 40-hour week because the nature of the business was such that the staff’s hours could easily be contracted to provide for a working week of 40 hours within the 51-day week. Another category of establishments included those which Supplied light refreshments from 9 or 10 a.m.. until 11 p.m.. or midnight on a six-day ■ week. They required a double shift already, and were not in the class of retail business, working one shift, for which tlie court had awarded a 44-hour week. Restaurants proper which catered for all meals were in the same category. Milk bars and other drink burs also required a double shift already. Profit of Industry. Mr. Young asserted that sections of the industry were very profitable. In previous awards no difference bad been made between the hours of work in the tearoom and restaurant industry, and the hours iu the hotel industry. The increased charges to the public would easily cover Hie increased wage account involved in a shorter week. In every instance where sufficient staff had been provided to comply with the requirements of the Shops aiid Offices' 'Act, the employer could carry out: a 40-hour week without making anv substantial additions to his staff. Even if the labour costs were 33 per cent, of the gross income of the industry, the increase involved in shortening the hours from 44 to 40 was only one-eleventh of the present wage bill and 3 per cent, of the gross turnover. Intention of Legislature. Mr. Mountjoy said the dispute affected at least 11S0 persons, firms, and companies. A conciliation council disagreed on the question of hours, tlie employers desiring a maximum of 44 a week and the union 40. The restaurants and tearooms were within the Shops and Offices Act, 1921, and the amendment of this year fixed the hours in hotels and restaurants at not more than 44. excluding meal hours, and made other provisions as to hours. It was submitted that the intention of the legislature was that such establishments Should work a 44-hour week. To fix the hours at 40 would place the employers in an impossible position. Many confectioners, bakers aud cabaret proprietors supplied light refreshments and employed workers who were only part of the time in one or tlie .other branch of the business. To tix one set of hours for the person who did some work in a tearoom and have a different total for those employed in a cake or confectionery shop would create a ridiculous position. Mr. Mountjoy cited the court's decisions in other retail businesses which were for a 44hour week. Ungoverned Competition.

'Tearooms had serious competition of a kind not experienced by other retail businesses, competition by working partnerships, family and co-operative concerns which had an advantage o\er employers who had to abide strictly by hours'of labour. It might be suggested that some employers of labour were already working tearoom workers 40 hours a week and all proprietors of tearooms should do likewise, but in those cases the establishments closed at 5.30 because the general-portion of the business the proprietors conducted closed them. In many such cases the proprietors were not entirely dependent upon the tearoom revenue to make their businesses pay. kn addition to the reinstatement of the 1931 award rates of wages, proprietors were faced with increased costs brought about by the reduction in hours and the increased cost of commodities. It would be impracticable to carry on the industry efficiently if a 40-hour week were introduced. Evidence was called by both sides.