CONCILIATION COURT

Grey River Argus, 16 February 1933, Page 2

CONCILIATION COURT

tea rooms dispute. The Conciliation Court sat at Greymouth yesterday to hear an industrial dispute, between G-. R. Harker, Harkers Tearooms, Mackay Street, Greymouth, and thirty-eight other restaurant, tearooms and boardinghouse keepers; and the New Zealand Federated Hotel and Restaurant Employees’ Industrial Association of Workers, and the Westland Hotel, Res. taurant and Boardinghouse Employees’ Industrial Union of Workers. Mr S. Ritchie, Conciliation Commissioner, presided. The Employers’ Assessors were: Messrs G. R- Harker, Herb. Moore, Mrs F. J. Preston (Hokitika), and Mr D. I. Macdonald (Christchurch). The Employees’ Assessors were Messrs F. G. Young, J. Goodall, J. S. Via], and H. J. Coburn. Mr Young stated that the Union was submitting the old award as a counter claim to the employers’ proposals. Mr Young also made reference to the agreement reached in Auckland, he stressing the fact that that agreement was satisfactory to the largest employers in the industry, representing probably one-third of the workers employed in the industry. Considerable discussion took place on the definition of kitchen hand, and Mr Young stressed the fact that in the Auckland agreement the special provision was made for the employment for 24 hours of the week of an extra hand in the kitchen, without affecting the rating of the kitchen staff. The main difference between the parties at yesterday’s sitting was the question of rating, the employers’ representatives claiming that the question of rating depended upon the number of cooks employed in an establishment, whereas under the old award and also under the Auckland agreement, before referred to, the question of rating depended on the number of hands employed. Agreement was reached in the hours of work, and holidays, and the opinion was expressed on both sides that if an agreement could bo reached upon the question of rating and wages, it would not I'o difficult to settle the other matters in dispute. During the afternoon, the employers retired to consider the c airns and coun-ter-claims on a basis that had reference entirely to the conditions prevailing in Westland, without reference to either the old Dominion award or the agreement reached in Auckland. Upon returning to the Council Chamber they submitted the following proposals: — ‘‘The employers offer to obtain award suited to West Coast conditions and giving consideration only to that class of tea room on the Coast irrespective of previous Dominion Award: (1) Hours of Work, as agreed in morning; (2) Weekly Half-holiday, as agreed in morning; (3) Annual Holiday, old award; (4) Special Days, 3s per day in addition to ordinary wages; (5) Overtime, at rate of Is 2d per hour for first four hours and Is 6d thereafter: (6) Wages: Cooks £2 per week, waitresses, housemaids, pantry maids, kitchen hands, bar attendants, counter-hands, etc., first s ixt months, 17s 6d per week; second six months, 22s 6d per week; third six months, 27s 6d per week; thereafter, 30s per week; head-wait-ress (in charge of live or more), 33s per week. The duties of the above workers shall he interchangeable as the employer may direct. (7) Proportion: One junior to each two or fraction of two seniors who shall be employed in receipt of at least 30s per week, an employer if substantially employed in the business to count a s senior; (S) Casuals: Cooks 16s per day, others 9s per dav. single meal ss; other conditions as per Auckland agreement; (9) Special occasions: Cooks 20s pqr day; others, male 12s 6d, female 10s; (10) Payment of Wages and Period of Notice: Employers’ proposals. (11) Laundry and Dresses: Present award; (12) 1 Board a nd Lodging: Union offer; (13) Emergency Waitresses: Auckland agreement with ‘ Satu'day ’ nighf i' l lien of ‘ Friday. ’ ’ ’ 'Phe employees’ assessors expressed a general appreciation of the proposals submitted by the employers -and moved an adjournment of the Council until March 4th, to enable the fresh offer to be submitted t° the of the local Union.