A DEADLOCK

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 36, 11 August 1923, Page 11

A DEADLOCK

HOTEL WORKERS' DISPUTE

TO BE B-EFERRED TO ARBITRA-

TION COURT.

' Kepresentatives of the Licensed Victuallers' Association and the Hotel and Bestaurant Workers' 'Union met again yesterday, -before- the Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. W. Newton, to give further consideration to the union's demands for a neW.award, certain clauses having beefl: agreed upon- at a previous meeting hefore the Commiesioner, the main point Jeft'at issue being that of .wages.U". The original demands of the union in; triat respect were reduced someivhat,. after, "the preliminary discussion, and the purpose-of the,, adjournment was: to enable the Victuallers' Association to. consider the : amended proposals. Today, however, .a deadlock reached. 'J:he assessors -for the employers were Messrs. F."-J.' A Oakes,v.J. M'Parland, \V.' (jienfell, and W. Donovan, and for the nnion,.Messrs: H.O'iiallej-; J. M'Kenz,ie f and> J,-i)e-Mbntfoi-t. '

Mr. Oakes, Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' : Association, said that the sissociation Had considered the. union's iimended proposals and" had decided not t;p abcept. 'those, .proposak,' hut to refer she whole question of wages to the Arbitration Court. It had been decided.. howeT&iVtbi'pay on a seven-day basis ac proposed. There had been a lack of uniformity in that matter, some hotels paying on the six-day and some on the seven-day basis.

; Mr. j. O'Malley, secretary of the union, remarked that the Labour Department enforced the six-day week when the 48-hour week come into operation and had laid down the rule that employees were not to be paid for the day off. Only three hotels in the Wellington district had j»id on the seven-day basis, and though the union had requested that a test case should be brought the Department had liot done bo. The Court had laid down Jhe seven-day basis for country hotels. ...

Mr. .Oakes remarked that the position was surely unusual when the Labour Department laid.down a provision contrary id its effect to the pronouncement of the Court in regard to an allied award. , Mr. M'Kenzie brought, before the notice.of the Commission a letter which had appeared in "The Post" of 20th July, adversely commenting upon the demands made by the union-at a time v<hen the matter was aub judice, the publication therefore, in the opinion of his union, amounting to contempt of Court..

Mr. Oakes gave an assurance that the letter had not been written with any cognisance of his association, and had a member written it, that had been done purely as a personal matter. The letter had come as a bombshell to him, and as a matter of fact had not been even mentioned at the meeting of members. Mr. Grrenfell_added that,he had not heard of the letter till it w as read out by Mr. M'Kenzie, * but the letter expressed the, opinion that widi publication had, been given it, and the.union considered that the effect of.the letter had actually prejudiced the workers' case, and accordingly asked that proceedings should be taken. .The Commissioner stated that he would inquire into the legal position. Ha proposed that ths consideration of the clauses should be proceeded with. ' Mr. M'Kenzie remarked that it appeared useless to proceed, and the sooner that was recognised the less time would .b 6 wasted. .jThe employers had decided to refer the question of wages to the Court without, Mr. M'Kenzie maintained, any real consideration, and under the circumstances ho/did not feel inclined to sign any recommendation whatever, .bat would reply as'each clause came up' that the union wished each to be referred on to the Court as Mr. Oakes Had done in regard to the wages clause. There were certain clauses on which both sides had already agreed, Mr. Newton remarked, to which Mr. M'Kenzie replied that the union asked leave to withdraw itj agreement upon those points, and to amend its claims. ■ .

A suggestion was made that the question should be reopened, but the assessors for the employers did not fee their way to consider thai proposition. . .

After a further discussion, it waa decided thattthe dispute as a whole should be referred to the Court for settlement