SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 134, 3 December 1910, Page 9

SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— ln last night's Post there ap» peared a letter signed by Mr. Pryor, in which a complaint is made about som% injustice to private hotelkeepers. Mr. Pryor fancies he has been, or is likely to be, inflicted through the. fixing o£ hours under the Shops and Offices Amendment Act. The chief complaint seems to arise from the fact that while 58 hours have been fixed for females m licensed hotexs 52 has been fixed for what is termed private hotels. If, aa ■Mr. Pryor states, they are in competition with each other, it is rather strange that Mr. Pryor has failed to notice th« injustice that licensed hotelkeepers have been working under in Auckland and Canterbury industrial districts, where, through awards of the Arbitration Court, the hours in licensed hotels were, regulated while no restriction was placed on private hotelkeepers, who, as Mr. Pryor points out, aro trade competitors. That many licensed hotelkeepera have complained of the unfair state ot affairs I am in a position to know, at the. same time, there has been some regulation, as all dining-room assistants (females generally) are not entitled .to be worked more than 52 hours under the original Act. It would appear, however, judging from Mr. Pryor' s letter, that there has been a wholesale violation of the Act. Might I also re- ' mind Mr. Pryor that in terms of an agreement, come to in Dunedin betweea the private hotelkeepers and the employees' union, and made into an award on Ist March, 1909, the hours of malea are 60 and females 52. The amending Bill causes, it will be seen, an increase of hours in that particular case. Another thing Mr. Pryor has failed to refer to is the. increase of hours of males in the Auckland, Canterbury, and Otago districts, whereby industrial awards affecting restaurants,' etc., the hours are 60. The Bill fixes them at 62. It is not. the minimum, I admit, but there is no doubt that soni4 employers will use it as an argument for increasing the hours when the awards expire. . ' In referring to the fact that where in restaurants and oyster saloons only 55 hours a week can be worked, owing to their being open six days in the week, Mr. Pryor overlooked the number of restaurants that are open seven days m the week. If ho suggests that special provision should be made for oyster saloons I'm with him, and I would suggest 48 hours as a fair week's work fo«f such saloons. As Mr. Pryor is "fully acquainted" with tht> conditions ot work in oyster saloons, which is more arduous and disagreeable than that in restaurants, etc., he will, being a just and fair-minded man, support me in that* With respect to the ten-hour day, mighti I point out that neither hour of starting or stopping is Sxed. The working of the hours can bo regulated by each employer, to suit, his particular business., Some businesses are slack in the day time and busy in the evening ; in others the reverse is the case. Unfortunately, the ten hours are not worked consecutively, but may be worked within 4 period of fourteen or sixteen hours^ I'm a little surprised at such an up-to-date man as Mr. Pryor using the tustj ol}i argument that the regulation of th« hours will bring ruin on the employe ci's : to quote his exact words, "Unless an_ immediate alteration is made black ruin stares a great number of these employers in the face." L listened to much the same wail from the employers while the Canterbury industrial conditions affecting restaurants were under consideration. I had tho pleasure subsequently of perusing a letter, published in the Lyttelton Times, from one of the complainant^ in which he freely admitted that the award had in no way affected his business unless it was to improve it by reason of better regulations having to be enforced. This was one of the awards that fixes 60 hours For males and 52 for females. No one would' question the statement made, as it ia with a qualification, namely, that "private hotelkeepers are, generally speaking, deserving and reputable citizens.'* The same can be said of those who work for them, and who have merited better treatment than has been meted out 1o them in the past. Had more consideration been shown, to employees by the majority of the employers, there would have been no need of 'the present legislation. — I am, etc., JOHN BARR, Secretary Canterbury Hotel and Restaurant Employees. 2nd December, 1910.