ARBITRATION COURT TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 106, 6 May 1915, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURT TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS

Continuing his argument on behalf ol the employers in the Arbitration Court to-day, in the private hotels dispute, Mr. Grenfell argued that the reduction of hours by legislation had been equivalent to an increase of wages to workers in the industry. The union was seeking to impose further restrictions in the matter of working hours, which were already quite sufficiently; regulated by the Shops and Offices Act. He submitted that tho rates of wages which tea-room proprietors were required to pay should not "be increased, since the tea-rooms in many cases existed principally to supply midday luncheons, and the work was light. That many restaurant proprietors were having a struggle to exist was indicated by the evidence called by Mr. Carey. The burden of the increased price of food was borne by the employers. Mr. Carey : In the families ? Mr. Grenfell replied that of fifty hands employed by Mr..Godber only two were married. Mr. Grenfell made a comparison of the wages in the industry under coiusideratiott with the wages for female workers under other awards. He j urged that the inolusion of provision ftn* certain workers in the , union demands was made for the purpose of gradually drawing in domestic workers. On this ground, he submitted, the Conrt should strike these workers out, since theyweTe not really concerned' in the industry. Tho union's claim for a lodging allowance was in tho nature of a "try on," and not at all creditable to the union. j If the union desired an increase of ss, I why did not it claim it outright instead of burying it, in the form of lodging allowance, in a minor clause? Regarding the demand for holidays, Mr. Grenfell urged that -there were special conditions in the industry. Of this the workers j were aware. If the conditions did not suit the workers they should - not go | into the industry. They could not ex- ' pect the conditions to be moulded to 1 suit them unless there were hardships. In his reply, Mr. Carey suggested that the Court should consult Dr. Plattst Mills, who had studied the effect of | work of this nature upon women. The i work, under present conditions, was injurious to the womanhood of this conn1 try. • His Honour said that, if carried to its logical conclusion, Mr. Carey's idea ' s ks. u ' t * k° na^ w °nien should be prohibited from performing this class of work. Mr. Carey said that the shortening of j hours would reduce the injurious quali- ! ties of the work. Tho union knew that its ideais could not be realised un1 der present-day conditions, but he would leave it to the Court to say how far the hours should be regulated for the benefit of workers in the industry. He submitted that if any worker needed a holiday it was tho woman who worked long hours, and probably lived in a room by herself, with none of the comforts of home-life. When the six-day week for licensed hotels was sought it was stated that it would mean ruin to smaller places; but when the alteration was made only nine extra hands were employed in fifty-eight hotels. The email hotels engaged no additional assistance. Now the argument was raised that the eix-day week would ruin the sixpenny restaurants, -preference to unionists was necessary to ensure the observance of the provisions of th« award. The Court reserved its decision.