CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14018, 25 March 1909, Page 7

CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

. f , - ; :"" ■ •■■' ■■■: AN UNSETTLED DISPUTE. -■ "■ ••'. --■:-;■. ■ ■-....... ..••■■.. UNION OFFERS NO EVIDENCE. fTaK adjourned hearing of the dispute be- , tween the Auckland Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Union and the restaurant proprietors in the city of Auckland and sub- ' urb* was called on yesterday morning before the Conciliation Council. ' Mr. T. Baric Giles, Conciliation Commissioner, presided, and with him were the assessors,'" Messrs. Fred. Prior and F. Whitehead, for the employers, and Messrs. "■ ■£ Keeami and G. Phillipps, for the employees. ; It will be remembered that at the previous sitting of the Council the union 'intimated that it would not appear before the. Commissioner again, and yesterday, although Mr. Long, the union secretary, was present, he took no part in the proceedings. ' • '. The Commissioner asked who appeared for the applicant*, but there was no reply. The. Commissioner then said he desired to draw attention to section 37 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Act. which provided that if anv or all of the applicants failed or refused to attend, or be represented, the Council might, notwithstanding such failure or refusal, proceed with the inquiry in the " same manner, as far as practicable, as if all the parlies were present or represented. Mr. C. G. Knox, who appeared for the $ f employers, said that, in face of there being no appearance on the part of applicants, ho had not very much of a case to answer. The demands made by the union were abi solutely impossible of acceptance by the , employers. This had already been intimated* to the union, with a request for a statement of the lowest rates and conditions generally to . which the demands could be reduced, and the reply was that nothing less than was contained in the demands could be taken, and if anything less were taken it would have to be the Christ-church award, with the addition of the compulsory preference clause, as embodied in the Auckland hotelkeepers' award. He would call various restaurantkeepers to state their views. John Charles Dent, restaurant-keeper. Queen-street, stated that he was familiar with the demands made by the union, and considered that they could not be granted, ■without an all-round increase of tariff to customers. The profits were not sufficient to permit of the demands being acceded to • without a raising of tariff, and a raising of the tariff would have a most depressing effect on business generally. He was aware of the conditions drawn up and , -reed to by the employers, copies of -■,-, which were produced, and, in his opinion, >: :, they t were the utmost that could be agreed to. At present the strictest supervision had to be exercised over expenses, and if the conditions proposed by the employers were brought- into force they would have /fly the effect of necessitating still stricter care and the shortening of the staff. In the ' union's demands extra wages were demand- . Ed for head waiters,, head waitresses, head pantrymen, but witness did not employ head waiters or waitresses or pantry* men. The employer usually supervised. {The claims of the union were that employees should _be paid • in addition for board and lodging, if not boarded by the 'employers, and he thought that an imposition. Other trades did not board and lodge employees. , With regard to the '/state of the labour market, he had always {received a great number of applicants for . *ny vacancy. William R. Crandall, manager and proprietor of the Tiffin, stated that the rates *f wages and conditions of employment deimanded could not be acceded to without 'at least a 15 per cent, increase in the iprice of meals, and there would have to be a reduction of staff. He had received 16 (applications for one vacancy recently, and of the 16, at least 12 were from competent . --_, persons. • ■.'"'" : ■■'~ ', .'/' ■■ ■:■ ' , " * James John Toomer, captain of the Saltation Army and manager of the People's Palace, said the conditions and wages demanded by the union would bo impossible, &s far as the People's Palace was concerned. The result would be an increase of tariff, and that would lead at once to a ■ loss of trade. The employers' proposals were the utmost that could be given effect " to, and even with them, retrenchment in every possible direction would have to be instituted. He found there was labour, and to spare, offering for any vacancies, but it-was not always of a suitable class. The Commissioner: How many men are \ in the union. ~ I -Mr. Knox: There- are something like 250 , tarployces in the restaurants, tea rooms, i and oyster saloons, and as far as we can •ecertain the number of those in the union i*ould not exceed 25 at the outside. | •J. A. Manson, High-street, was of bpinion that the. demands of the union were unreasonable. He had never had any complaints regarding the wages he ■ paid, and he thought it utterly unreasonable that board aftd lodging should be defended. He had advertised for a second cook at £1 ,sb' and a pantry boy at 15s, Bod there were any number of applicants. - Henry T. Garrett, \ restaurant-keeper, Queen-street, gave corroborative evidence. .'.Mr. E. Keeami: You have'girls work«ing after 11 at night and after the cars . ■ ptop. - How do you expect those girls to iget home? '. , Witness said the girls would not take ,toe job if they lived out of town. He had no room to provide lodgings. If board and lodging were made compulsory he would have to arrange for accommodation somewhere else. -Mr. 'Knox intimated that all the evidence was of similar character, and he ■would close his case. he Commisioner asked the assessors if they wished for an adjournment for the ptupose of considering the proposals of •the employers. - The union's assessors replied that there (was no necessity. They did not wish to •further consider the proposals. , -'The Commissioner said that as no evidence had been offered there was really no case to answer. It therefore itmained ;|oi' the Council to send a notification to the Arbitration Court that the dispute ■had not been settled, owing in great measure to the unreasonable attitude of the t ßnion » as voiced by its representative, •Mr. Long, in declining .to submit evidence. The Council would notify the , Court of Arbitration - The sittings then concluded. THE! POINTS OF DIFFERENCE. The principal points of difference between the union and the employers are in respect to wages and to lodging allowance The union demands 5s per week i - allowance where lodging is not provided, ..'.... preference to unionists, and wages, as follow:— Kitchen.— Where five or more hands j ,: «re employed: Chef, £4 10s; second, '. £?, 15s ; third, £1 7s 6d ; others £1 15s. Where four hands are employed: Chef, £2155; second, £2 ss; others, £1 7s 6d. Where three hands are employed : Chef, v ±/3 10s; second, £2 2s 6d; others, £1 W. -Where two hands are employed: <*«, £2 15s; second, £1 12s 6d. Where only one hand is employed : Male cook, | *^ss; female, £1 15s; others, £1 ss. Waiters.—Where three waiters or over ate employed: Head waiter, £2 10s; V ' opd - £2; third and others, £1 10s Where two waiters are employed: Head I baiter, £2; second, £1 10s. Where only one waiter is employed he shall be paid C '_ a minimum of £1 10s. .-V Waitresses.—Where two or more wait- I • resses are employed : Head waitress, £1 Is 6d per week; others, £1 2s 6d. Where , only ne waitress is employed she shall be paid, a minimum wage of £1 ss. . Pantry.—Males: Where mere than one >« .employed, first hand £1 10s, others *i °f» where only one hand is employed 06 .Shall be paid £1 5s per week. Females : Ail females employed in the pan- «- . try shall be paid £1 2s 6d per week. .'/-,'., Oyster Openers.—£l 15s. The employers' offer is as follows:— - Ihe following shall Imj the minimum •Weekly rates of pay for the following t -' c-larses of workers in restaurants, tearooms, and oyster saloons:— Kitchen.— Where four or more hands ~ are • employed: ■ Chef, £-3; second, £2; third, £1 ss; other hands, male £1, fe- '* - male 15s. Where' three hands are em\kswm^r,'■<■■■■■■■. %: vS > ■-.'':' .■ ■■■ ..- •■■. ■:■■«■■ m ■■■■-'. it m

ployed: Chef, £2*los; second, £1, 10s; others, male £1, female 15s. ; Where two hands are employed: Chef, £2 second, £1. Where two female hands are employed : Chief, £1 10s; - second, £1. Where there are only two hands they must divide the whole of the work of the kitchen between them. Where only one hand is employed: Male cook, £2 female, £1 ss. That apprentices be taken at 10s per .week for the first year, 12s 6d for the second year, 15s for the third year, 17s 6d for tho fourth year, and 30s per week for the fifth year. Three months' probation to ascertain the ' apprentice's suitability. One apprentice to each two or .portion of two cooks. Oyster Openers.— 10s. Kitchen and Pantry Hands.— £1; females, 15s. No head kitchen or pantry hands. Waiters, £1 ss; waitresses, 15s. Not to be any head waiters or waitresses. Waitresses (probationers).To be paid 12s 6d per week for the first six months'. ' Waitresses (mid-day).—los per week for work from 11.30 a.m. to two p.m. Midday, waitresses to be on the premises by 11 a.m., so that provision may be made to supply their places should* they not attend. 'Preference is agreed to on certain conditions regarding character, competence, etc.