FORTY-HOUR WEEK

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 120, 17 November 1936, Page 13

FORTY-HOUR WEEK

RESTAURANT WORKERS

APPLICATION TO COURT

An application for the extension of the 40-hour week to the employees in tearooms and restaurants was made by the New Zealand Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Industrial Association of Workers before the Arbitration Court today. The request was made by the workers in Conciliation Council "^proceedings, but was not agreed to by the employers, who offered a 44-hour week.

Mr. Justice Page presided, and associated with him were Messrs. W. Cecil Prime and A. L. Monteith. Mr. F. G. Young appeared for the applicants and Mr. W. J. Mouritjoy for .the employers. Mr. Young said that the Minister of Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) had been quoted as saying that the increased charges adopted by tearoom and restaurant proprietors had been excessive and would have to be subject to an inquiry. The Minister had gone on further .to express the view that the rate of increase in the charges for meals was not only sufficient to cover the increase to bring the staff wages up to the 1931 rates, but was sufficient to pay this increase five times over. Many restaurant proprietors vied with each other as to who could put up the most pretentious and elaborate premises. The workers did not agree that the 40-hour week would increase to any appreciable extent the cost,of running tearooms and restaurants. Even if it were admitted that labour costs were equivalent to 33 per cent, of the gross income of the industry, the shortening of the hours of work from 44 to 40 would not be more than one-eleventh of the present wages bill. That would increase the employer's expenses on his gross turnover by only 3 per. cent. They thought that, the extra charges which had been handed on to the public would easily cover any increase in the wage accounts.

Mr. Mountjoy said that from 1920 to September 1 of this year the hours o£ employment for restaurants had been 48 weekly, but under the recent legislation there had .been a reduction to 44 hours, and it was submitted that the Legislature must have had good reasons for making • the hours under the Shops and Offices Act 44 per week, while provision was made in the Factories Act for a 40-hour week. To fix the wages of workers in tearooms and restaurants at 40 per .week would place the proprietors in an impossible position. The tearooms and restaurant industry was in most cases only a part of another trade or industry, and to fix one set of hours for the persons who worked in the tearoom and another set for those employed in another part of the business would create a ridiculous position. Tearoom and restaurant keepers were faced with very serious competition, not experienced to the same extent by other classes of retailers. In cases where tearoom workers were working only a 40-hour week, it had been found they were employed in establishments which closed at 5.30 p.m. because the general portion of the business closed at that time.

Both sides are calling evidence to support their contentions.

(Proceeding.)