TWO ORGANISATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15482, 13 December 1913, Page 8

TWO ORGANISATIONS.

i «» . .' HOTEL EMPLOYEES' UNIONS. i " : CASE FOR ARBITRATION COURT. In consequence of tho refusal of the - Auckland hotol licensees to recognise the ; Auckland Hotel ana Restaurant Employees' Union (the old union which took a part in tho " general strike" a few weeks ago) the proceedings before tho Conciliation Commissioner (Mr. T. Harlc Giles) yesterday prove,] resultless and the dispute hied by tho old union has been sent to the Arbitration Court. The union filed an application for a new award fixing tho hours and conditions of labour; the employers replied that they do not now recoghiso this union, and that all their employees are members of the Auckland City Hotel Assistants' Industrial Union of Workers, with which an agreement was concluded a few days ago. A statement was made bv Air. 1. Long (representing the old unicii) in which he alleged that the new union was m collusion with the employers. The employers* assessors were Messrs. J. H. Pagni J. S. Palmer, and C. Kalman, and those of the union were Mr. W. K. Spencer, Mrs. Jams and Miss Teas Honeysett. The old union had applied to have tho new union joined as a party to the dispute, and though the secretary of the new union Air. Vincent Alma °) protested on its "behalf, the commissioner decided that,.~foiowing his usual procedure, he must join the new union to the dispute. The new union could carry its dissent to the Arbitration Court if it wished. .* M> ■ ! . Mr. Long protested against the state, merit of employers that the workers represented by his union were not 'workers under the meaning of the Act. Tho statement that respondents had no dealings with tho applicant union was childish in the extreme The old award had expired on August 15 last, and the reason why a fresh award had not been sought at once was that certain matters affecting hotel employees were under the consideration of arliament. He emphasised that every hotel worker who was a member of the old union prior to the industrial trouble was still.a member and,there were a larco number of people employed in hotels who were not members of the new union, thereore it was not competent for the new union to make an agreement on behalf of the employees. The old union intended to exercise its powers to the full under the Act, become a party to the new agreement, and take it before the Court to have an award ma . The Court would undoubtedly cut a lot of the extraneous matter out of this agreement as it had in former cases. The present dispute was filed in tho correct form and licensees could not 3!fc V V, Sa> ' the >' M ,10 dealings with the old union. It was competent for his union to ask the Court for an award "respective of the fact that a certain sec™L ™ employees had made an agreement ii What right had licensees to claim that their employees were members of the new union, not ol the old union? The new union resulted from one or two of the workers and ono or two of the employers putting their heads together. } Mr. Pagni: I deny that. [r,^ Ijong i Sa , idthat his contention was that there had been no Unlawful strike but if it could be proved in any court of competent jurisdiction that there had been an unlawful strike his union was prepared to accept responsibility, and there were penalising clauses which could be brought into operation. There was no excuse, tot attempting to brush aside an old-estab-I l.shed union on this pretext. The agreement of the new union was fa mi m order Jo defeat the hotel workers and withhold from them for three ycata Uw benefit o5 any legislation that, might he passed by Parliament. Hi* union proposed to defeat' this insidious attempt by going before the Court and asking it to cut out portions of the agreement and convert it into an award Mr. Vwiuri he was instructed by the i Licensed Victuallers' Association to c&fine'l to discuss the. dupfe few ft fed m ' agreement with its workers ■ Mr. Long said it was evident there was collusion between the employers and the UttV! Wfl\«R.

The Commissioner, There is no evidence of collusion before this council, i Mrs Jaryiß said she was interned that the girls had joined the new union eo ,V because they had been informed that that was the only way to get work The commissioner said that as the emplovers would not discuss the disimte if »«ri K* before the Arbitration (£ A vote of thanks to the commissioner supported by both sides, concluded "£ silting.